In 1981 I published an article called Early Supposition Theory. Then as now, the magisterial work on the subject was L.M. de Rijk’s Logica Modernorum and then as now any discussion of the topic would have to rely to a great extent on the texts published there. This means that many of the problems that existed then still remain, but a couple of important new studies and several new texts have been published in the meantime, so it may be time to try to take stock of the situation. I will first look at the origin of the term suppositio and then at the chronology of our source texts.
EbbesenS., 'The Semantics of the Trinity according to Stephen Langton and Andrew Sunesen' (1987) Gilbert de Poitiers et ses contemporains aux origines de la Logica ModernorumActes du septième symposium européen d’histoire de la logique et de la sémantique médiévales, Poitiers 17-22 Juin 1985 (Napoli 1987, 401-435).
EbbesenS., '‘Medieval Latin Glosses and Commentaries on Aristotelian Logical Texts of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’' (1993b) Glosses and Commentaries on Aristoteian Logical Texts. The Syriac, Arabic and medieval Latin Traditions(The Warburg Institute, University of London, London 1993, 129-177).
KneepkensC.H., '‘Suppositio and Supponere in 12th-Century Grammar’' (1987) Gilbert de Poitiers et ses contemporains aux origines de la Logica ModernorumActes du septième symposium européen d’histoire de la logique et de la sémantique médiévales, Poitiers 17-22 Juin 1985 (Napoli 1987, 325-351).
de LiberaA., '‘The Oxford and Paris Traditions in Logic’' (1982) The Cambridge History of Later Medieval PhilosophyFrom the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Disintegration of Scholasticism 1100-1600 (Cambridge-London-New York-New Rochelle-Melbourne-Sydney 1982, 174-187).
de LiberaA., '‘Logique et théologie dans la Summa Quoniam homines d’Alain de Lille’' (1987) Gilbert de Poitiers et ses contemporains aux origines de la Logica ModernorumActes du septième symposium européen d’histoire de la logique et de la sémantique médiévales, Poitiers 17-22 Juin 1985 (Napoli 1987, 437-469).
NielsenL.O., 'Theology and Philosophy in the Twelfth Century' (1982) A Study of Gilbert Porreta’s Thinking and the Theological Expositions of the Doctrine of the Incarnation during the Period 1130-1180(Acta Theologica Danica, 15; Leiden 1982).
de RijkL.M., 'Logica Modernorum' (1962-1967) A Contribution to the History of Early Terminist Logic. I. On the Twelfth Century Theories of Fallacy; II/1: The Origin and the Early Development of the Theory of Supposition II/2: Texts and Indices(Assen 1962-1967).
de RijkL.M., '‘The Origins of the Theory of the Properties of Terms’' (1982) The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy. From the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Desintegration of Scholasticism 1100-1600(Cambridge-London-New York-New Rochelle-Melbourne-Sydney 1982, 161-173).
Pinborg (1968) and (1972), 47-49. See also Nielsen (1982), 105.
De Libera (1987), 455; Valente (2008), esp. 275 ff. See also Valente’s contribution to this volume.
Cf. De Libera (1982b), 176.
Ebbesen (1987). Pinborg (1968) had already pointed to Langton’s pupil, Andrew Sunesen, without, however, knowing that Andrew was dependent on Langton.
De Libera (1984), 193, follows Chenu in assigning a date of about 1230, but this presupposes that John’s logical works were all written before he began to study theology. Heine Hansen, who is preparing an edition of John’s commentary on the Categories, has pointed out to me that the commentary contains a number of references to theological authors, which suggests it was composed after John had commenced his study of theology. Assuming that he continued to teach the arts during his first years as a student of theology, we gain a wider span of time within which his logical works may have been written, roughly 1231-1241.
De Rijk (1970), 17-18.
Ebbesen and Pinborg (1970), 44n.
D’Ors (1997), (2001), (2003).
Iwakuma (1993), 1-4. In ms Cambridge, Jesus College Q.B.17, William’s Fallaciae occurs together with theological works by Willelmus de Montibus.
Iwakuma (1993), 3.
De Rijk (1982), 165.
Braakhuis (1979), 1, 427, n. 12; Iwakuma (1993), 4, n. 16.
Bos (2001), 6, proposes a date between 1200 and 1220, but I am afraid that is too early. There are references to the Posterior Analytics in II/1.1.1, 95, and II/1.1.5, 97; and to Physics II in III. 0, p. 134. In II/1.1, 85, we find ‘Nullus enim artifex probat sua principia’, which seems to indicate a date when both Posterior Analytics and Physics I were commonly read. Cf. Thomas Aquinas, In Sententiarum I, q. 1, a. 3: ‘sicut nec aliquis artifex potest probare sua principia’, Boethius of Dacia, Quaestiones super libros Physicorum ed. Sajó (1954). I. 12, 152-154 ‘Quaeritur utrum aliquis artifex possit probare sua principia si sibi negantur. [. . .] Item, nullus artifex potest probare aliquid contra illum qui nihil sibi concedit’. The debate in Boethius (and others from the second half of the century) is linked to Averroes’ discussion in his commentary on Physics I, comm. 8.