¹ Reiners, J., Der Nominalismus in der Frühscholastik: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Universalienfrage im Mittelalter—nebst einer neuen Textausgabe des Briefes Roscelins an Abaelard (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelatters [henceforth BGPMA] 8.5; Münster in Westfalen 1910) 10–12.Google Scholar

I am indebted to Dijs J., Ebbesen S., Mews C., and Rosier I., all of whom read an earlier draft and gave me invaluable comments, and to Ebbesen S. and Lohr C. H., for their help with questions of style. I would also like to express my sincere thanks to Gasparri F. (C.N.R.S., Paris) for her help in palaeographical and codicological matters (see Section 3), to Luscombe D. for sending me a copy of his unpublished dissertation (see Section 5), and to Schemmel B., Director of the Staatsbibliothek in Bamberg, for his generosity when I visited the library in 1986.

² Ottaviano, C., ‘Un opuscolo inedito di Abelardo,’ Fontes Ambrosiani III (Florence 1933) 95–207. A better edition is needed. For the present, one must consult passages published in Geyer, B., Peter Abaelards Philosophische Schriften I-IV (BGPMA 21. 1–4; Münster i. W. 1919–1933) 581–88, and in Mews, C., ‘A Neglected Gloss on the “Isagoge” by Peter Abelard,’ Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 31 (1984) 35–55. See also n. 72 below.Google Scholar

³ Mews, ‘Neglected Gloss.’Google Scholar

⁴ For this manuscript, see M.-T. d'Alverny's description in Bibliothèque Nationale: Catalogue générale des manuscrits latins IV (Paris 1958) 398–405.Google Scholar

⁵ The term status is first introduced into the discussion of universals in Abelard's Logica ‘Ingredientibus’ as his own terminology (see the index of Geyer, Philosophische Schriften). But shortly thereafter a group of realists also adopts the term. Our commentary says, for example, on fol. 123^vb = 125^va: ‘Ut homo Socratis et homo Platonis, cum essentialiter differant, tamen materiae et formae eorum consimiles effectus operantur; asinus vero et lapis diversae species et in essentia et secundum indifferentiam sunt, cum dissimiles status habeant et effectus dissimiles exigant. Status autem appello vel res ex materia et form is constitutas vel passiones, id est constitutiones quae in rebus sunt constitutis vel partes quae ipsas res constituunt.’ Further evidence of a realist status theory is provided by another text, published by Haur, B.éau, in Notices et extraits de quelques manuscrits latins de la Bibliothèque Nationale V (Paris 1892) 298–325. A critical edition of the latter text is being prepared by Dijs, J. and will appear in Vivarium. Google Scholar

⁶ The indifferentia theory on universals, which William of Champeaux devised after being attacked by Peter Abelard in ca. 1108–1109 (see n. 24 below), later developed into two theories, collectio and status theory (by these labels I mean theories in which either collectio or status works as a key-term together with indifferentia). Introducing types of indifferentia theory, Abelard uses only indifferentia and collectio in his Logica ‘Ingredientibus,’ but status in addition in his Logica ‘Nostrorum petitioni sociorum.’ See Geyer, , Philosophische Schriften 13.16–16.18 and 518.9–522.9. Mews, C. dates the former work to ca. 1117/1121, the latter to 1121/1124 (?), in his ‘On Dating the Works of Peter Abelard,’ Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen-âge [henceforth AHDL] (1985) 73–134 (henceforward I follow his conclusions as to the dates of Abelard's works).Google Scholar

⁷ For this manuscript and the commentary, see L. M. de Rijk, Logica Modernorum: A Contribution to the History of Early Terminist Logic II 1 (Assen 1967) 77–81.Google Scholar

⁸ Sententia vocum can, however, also be used to mean ‘the sense of the words,’ as in a commentary on De differentiis topicis, MS Paris, Arsénal 910, fol. 48^ra: TOPICORUM VERO etc. (PL 64.1182A12): ‘Ostenso quae species argumenti, cui facultati deserviat, ostendit cuius inventionis copia?m〈 comparare intendit. Quid sit autem copiam habere argumenti (-ta MS) quaeritur. Et dicit m?agister〈 P?etrus〈 quod ille copiam argumenti habeat qui exposita sibi et vi et sententia vocum in argumentatione dispositarum, scit de ipso argumento iudicare. Sed quaeritur quomodo dicat “exposita sibi vi (et) significatione.” Si enim ita dicat quod simpliciter exposita vocum significatione quae in argumento[rum] sunt, sciat ex qua habitudinum illatum sequatur ex praemisso, hoc falsum est.’ According to Green, N. J.-Pedersen, The Tradition of the Topics in the Middle Ages: The Commentaries on Aristotle's and Boethius’ ‘Topics’ (Munich 1984) 426, ‘This work must be placed late in the 12th century.’Google Scholar

⁹ Waitz, G. and de Simson, B., ed., Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Imperatoris Friderici I. (MGH in usum schol. 46; Hannover 1978) 69.3–20.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. de Rijk, L. M., ‘Some New Evidence on Twelfth-Century Logic,’ Vivarium 4 (1966) 23–28.Google Scholar

¹¹ Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France XII (Paris 1781) 36c.Google Scholar

¹² For earlier unsuccessful attempts to identify John, see É. Lesne, Les Écoles de la fin du VIII^e siècle à la fin du XII^e (Histoire de la propriété ecclésiastique en France 5; Lille 1940) 602 n. 3.Google Scholar

¹³ MGH SS XIV, 275.13. For Master Rainbertus’ career, see Lesne, , Les Écoles 338.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ph. Jaffé, ed., Monumenta rerum germanicarum 5, nos. 98–100 (Berlin 1869; repr. Aalen 1964) 187–88.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Schmitt, F. S., ed., S. Anselmi Cantuariensis archiepiscopi opera omnia II (2d ed. Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt 1968) 9.19–22.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Master Rainbertus signed a document of the bishop of Lille (1105–1113). See Lesne, , Les Écoles 338.Google Scholar

¹⁷ As for Otto, see the passage quoted in Section 1 above. John says in Metalogicon 2.17 (ed. Webb, C. C. J., Oxford 1929, 92): ‘Alius ergo consistit in vocibus; licet hec opinio cum Rocelino suo fere omnino iam euanuerit.’Google Scholar

¹⁸ Reiners, , Der Nominalismus (n. 1 above) 32–33.Google Scholar

¹⁹ ed. Baeumker, C. and von Waltershausen, B. S., Frühmittelalterliche Glossen des angeblichen Jepa zur Isagoge des Porphyrius (BGPMA 24.1; Münster im Westfalen 1924), based on MS Paris, Bibl. Nat., lat. 12949; however, the edition leaves out a large number of glosses found in the manuscript. Besides, there are several other manuscripts of these glosses. See Marenbon, J., ‘Working Catalogue of Glosses and Commentaries to the Isagoge, Categories, and De interpretatione’ (Warburg Institute Surveys and Texts, forthcoming), The, Section A. mysterious Jepa or Icpa has recently been identified as Israel the Scot by É. Jeauneau in his ‘Pour le dossier d'Israël Scot,’ AHDL (1986) 7–72.Google Scholar

²⁰ See Marenbon, , ‘Working Catalogue,’ item P2. The date is that of the manuscripts.Google Scholar

²¹ See ibid., item P13. The manuscript is from the early twelfth century. But the fact that the work is nothing more than excerpts from Boethius’ commentaries on Porphyry indicates the earlier date.Google Scholar

²² See Lohr, C. H., ‘Medieval Latin Aristotle Commentaries,’ Traditio 23 (1972) 383, and Marenbon, ‘Working Catalogue,’ item P3. The oldest version is preserved in MS Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Laud. lat. 67, fols. 9^v–14^v; revised versions, in MSS Assisi, Bibl. Com., 573, fols. 4^r–15^v and Paris, Bibl. Nat., lat. 13368, fols. 214^r–223^r. I am preparing an edition, which will appear in Grammatica speculativa; I shall discuss the date in detail in the introduction to my edition.Google Scholar

²³ See Marenbon, , ‘Working Catalogue,’ item P16. There are few clues to the date of this commentary. But it is more dependent in its phrasing on Boethius’ commentaries than (vi), which suggests a date earlier than that commentary.Google Scholar

²⁴ See ibid., item P14. An edition is being prepared by Dijs, J. This commentary must have been written by William of Champeaux himself or by a student of his after he revised his theory of universals as a consequence of Abelard's attack in 1108/1109. According to Abelard's Historia calamitatum (ed. Monfrin, J., Paris 1978, 65.85–91), William revised his theory from claiming that universals are essentialiter or in essentia the same to holding that they are indifferenter the same. Now, the commentary in Paris 17813 says on fol. 10^vb: ‘Quidam volunt omnes species et individua esse unum in materia…. Nos autem dicimus (dicens MS) omnes res etiam in essentia esse penitus diversas.’ (The same assertion is also found on fol. 13^ra.) Again, in several places on fol. 9^ra the commentary says that those different things are unum per indifferentiam. Here we encounter the most primitive ‘indifferentia theory.’ The indifferentia theory developed into the collectio and status theory in the 1120s (see n. 6 above); that is to say, this commentary was probably written in the second decade of the twelfth century.Google Scholar

²⁵ The relevant passage of (vi) is published in Hauréau, Notices et extraits V (n. 5 above) 293–96. Those of (iv) and (v) have never been printed, but they are too long to quote here.Google Scholar

²⁶ It is typical of commentaries of this period to discuss in the beginning the intentio of the author of the work to be commented on, its utilitas, the ordo of the discussion, and so on. See Hunt, R., ‘The Introduction to the Artes in the Twelfth Century,’ Studia mediaevalia in honorem admodum Reverendi Patris Raymundi Josephi Martin (Bruges 1948; repr. in his Collected Papers on the History of Grammar in the Middle Ages, Amsterdam 1980) 85–112.Google Scholar

²⁷ Minio, L.-Paluello (ed.), Aristoteles Latinus I 6–7: Categoriarum supplementa (Leiden 1966).Google Scholar

²⁸ Brandt, S. (ed.), Anicii Manlii Severini Boethii in Isagogen Porphyrii Commenta (CSEL 48, Vienna–Leipzig 1904; repr. New York–London 1966).Google Scholar

²⁹ Anicii Manlii Severini Boethii In Categorias Aristotelis (PL 64.159A7–161B2).Google Scholar

³⁰ For the late ancient background of these Boethian inconsistencies, see Ebbesen, S., ‘Philoponus, “Alexander” and the Origins of Medieval Logic,’ in Sorabji, R., ed., Aristotle Transformed (London 1990) 445–61, particularly 455–56.Google Scholar

³¹ There is a certain difficulty, the solution of which I do not know, in reconciling the testimonies of John and Otto with the fact that the Disputata Porphyrii does not give any answer to Porphyry's questions, though there are reasons to think that it is Roscelin's work, as I shall show in Section 5 below.Google Scholar

³² For example, the commentary states on fol. 123^ra = 125^ra: ‘Item opponitur quod incongrue tractat Porphyrius de rebus, cum Aristoteles agat de vocibus. Quod sic solvitur…. Vel potest dici quod hic agitur principaliter de vocibus sicut in Categoriis, nec tamen est concedendum voces solas esse genera et species.’ And again, on fol. 123^vb = 125^va, the commentary begins to discuss realist theories on universals with these words: ‘Alii autem aliter de universalium natura confirmant, quibus res principaliter videntur esse genera et species et cetera universalia de pluribus praedicabilia, voces autem genera et species et cetera secundario gratia rerum esse dicunt.’Google Scholar

³³ Ed. L. M. de Rijk, Garlandus Compotista, Dialectica, First Edition of the Manuscripts with an Introduction on the Life and Works of the Author and on the Contents of the Present Work (Assen 1959).Google Scholar

³⁴ See de Rijk's arguments in ibid., § 9, liii–lv.Google Scholar

³⁵ Cordoliani, A., ‘Note sur un auteur peu connu: Gerland de Besançon (avant 1100–après 1148),’ Revue du moyen âge latin 1 (1945) 411–19.Google Scholar

³⁶ Rijk, De, Garlandus Compotista, ix–xiv.Google Scholar

³⁷ Ibid., xlix.Google Scholar

³⁸ See de Vregille's, B. articles on the two Gerlands in DHGE XX (Paris 1984) 883–87. See also Kuttner, S., ‘Gerland of Besançon and the Manuscripts of his “Candela”: A Bibliographical Note,’ ΠΑΡΑΔΟΣΙΣ: Studies in Memory of Quain Edwin A. (New York 1976; repr. in his Medieval Councils, Decretals, and Collections of Canon Law, London 1980).Google Scholar

³⁹ Rosier, I., ‘Évolution des notions d’equivocatio et univocatio au XII^e siècle,’ in her L'ambiguïté: Cinq études historiques (Lille 1988) 105 n. 6; and idem, ‘Note sur une surprenante citation des Topiques d'Aristote au XI^e siècle,’ Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 28 (1986) 178–84.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Rosier, I. poses two more relevant points: (1) Gerland is isolated in using Aristotle's Topics to discuss equivocation; and (2) examples given in the Dialectica of modes of equivocation are not exactly the same as those in the Boethian translation of the Topics nor in the Translatio anonyma, that is to say, he might have used a different version from those so far known. These points remain open. I have attempted in vain to find any parallel in all the known extant commentaries on the Categories (chap. 1) and in some commentaries on Boethius’ De divisione (PL 64.888D3ff.) from the eleventh and the twelfth centuries.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Minio-Paluello, L., ‘The “Ars disserendi” of Adam of Balsham “Parvipontanus,”’ Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 3 (1954) 136–40. See also his ‘The Text of Aristotle's Topics and Elenchi: The Latin Tradition,’ in his Opuscula: The Latin Aristotle (Amsterdam 1972) 300. For the date, see the former work, 117.Google Scholar

⁴² The evidence is collected in Minio, L.-Paluello (ed.), Aristoteles Latinus III 1–4 (Bruges–Paris 1962) 433–36.Google Scholar

⁴³ I owe this assumption to Mews, C. Google Scholar

⁴⁴ For this manuscript, see Section 6 below.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Green-Pedersen, , Tradition (n. 8 above) 418.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ebbesen, S., ‘Analyzing Syllogisms or Anonymus Aurelianensis III—The (Presumably) Earliest Extant Latin Commentary on the Prior Analytics, and Its Greek Model,’ Cahiers de l'institut du moyen-âge grec et latin 37 (1981) 1–20. For the text quoted, see 14.5–9.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Minio-Paluello, , Aristoteles Latinus III 1–4 295–372.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Dialectica, ed. de Rijk (n. 33 above) 7.10–11. The word materia is repeated once in line 11 and recurs in lines 12, 14, 20 and 21. De Rijk, however, has needlessly ‘corrected’ this to maneria in all cases.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Porphyry does make an analogy between genus/difference and materia/forma, but never identifies them simply (Isagoge, ed. Minio-Paluello 18.9–15). The simple identification must stem from Boethius’ De divisione (PL 64.879C12–15): ‘Amplius quoque genus speciebus materia est. Nam sicut aes accepta forma transit in statuam, ita genus accepta differentia transit in speciem.’Google Scholar

⁵⁰ The relevant passage is ‘speciem nihil aliud esse quam genus informatum, et individuum nihil aliud esse quam speciem informatum,’ which is printed in Cousin, V., Ouvrages inédits d'Abélard (Paris 1836) lxxix n. 1.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Dialectica, ed. de Rijk 79.21–29: ‘Similiter quando dico “Homerus est poeta” et in similibus, scilicet ubi accidens praedicatur cum “est” copula, “est” accipitur ibi copula secundum accidens, quia ergo “est” et “poeta” praedicantur de Homero. Praedicabitur etiam inde “est” simpliciter? Non. Nam “est” praedicatur de Homero sequendo hanc vocem quae est accidens ad se designandum, de, i.e. Homero praedicabitur “est” adiacenter, quod bene apparet per hanc vocem quae est “poeta” inhaerentem ei “Homero” per ipsum “est” copulam, et ideo non potest inde praedicari simpliciter….’Google Scholar

⁵² See the passage of the Glosule: ‘ex vi praedicationis hoc solum intendit haec propositio (scilicet “Socrates est albus”) quod albedo inhaeret Socrati, …’ printed in Hunt, R., ‘Studies on Priscian in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,’ Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 1 (1943) 227 (repr. in his Collected Papers [n. 26 above]).Google Scholar

⁵³ See the relevant texts collected in Hunt, R., ‘Studies’ 31–38, and in Fredborg, K. M., ‘Tractatus glosarum Prisciani in MS Vat. lat. 1487,’ Cahiers de l'institut du moyen âge grec et latin 21 (1977) 21–44.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Dialectica, ed. de Rijk 79.29–33.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See the study on Abelard's status theory in Tweedale, M. M., Abailard on Universals (Amsterdam/New York/Oxford 1976) 213–304.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See fol. 14^ra: ‘potens ridere non est definitio risibilis, nisi accipiatur potens ridere in eo statu in quo est; et risibile debet accipi habile ad ridendum in eo statu in quo est.’ For the date of this commentary, see n. 24 above.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See Dialectica, ed. de Rijk 129.7–141.3. For this topic, see the discussion of Tweedale, Abailard on Universals 285–302, where the author argues as if this theory in Abelard's Dialectica is more advanced than the ‘inherence theory’ in the Logica ‘Ingredientibus.’ Mews argues contrariwise, and takes the Dialectica to be the earlier of the two works; see his ‘On Dating …’ (n. 6 above) 84–87.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See Gerland's, Dialectica, ed. de Rijk 46.4–8; and Abelard's, ed. de Rijk, 163.30–38.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ See Gerland's, Dialectica 47.27–48.7, and Abelard's 164.6–31.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See Gerland's, Dialectica 47.12–48.7, and Abelard's 164.32–165.8.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See Gerland's, Dialectica 45.18–46.3, and Abelard's 165.10–30.Google Scholar

⁶² See Gerland's, Dialectica 7.27–30, and Abelard's Editio, in Dal Pra, M., ed., Pietro Abelardo: Scritti di Logica (2d ed. Firenze 1969) 10.25–27.Google Scholar

⁶³ What I say below of the two masters is based on the sources referred to in de Rijk, Garlandus Compotista x-xi; Lesne, Les écoles (n. 12 above) 86, 243; Kuttner ‘Gerland of Besançon’ (n. 38 above); and De Vregille's articles referred to above in n. 38.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Rijk, De, Garlandus Compotista, xi. Kuttner, without knowing de Rijk's work, makes the same tentative claim and for the same reason in his ‘Gerland of Besançon’ 74.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See Reiners, , Der Nominalismus (n. 1 above) 65.25–28 (= PL 178.360C).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ See MGH SS VIII 257.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See Abelard's, Historia calamitatum, ed. Monfrin 88.877–880. For the discussion to date concerning the identification of ‘Terricus’ in the Historia Calamitatum with Thierry of Chartres, see Fredborg, K. M., The Latin Rhetorical Commentaries by Thierry of Chartres (Toronto 1988) 5.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ The most recent list of Abelard's extant works and their editions is found in Mews, ‘On Dating’ (n. 6, above) 133–34.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ In PL 178.357–372; a better edition is in Reiners, Der Nominalismus 62–80.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Minio, L.-Paluello, Abaelardiana inedita (Roma 1958) xli–xlvi (the description) and 109–21 (the edition). For the MS, see also Lohr, C. H., ‘Aristotelica Gallica: Bibliothecae M-Z,’ Theologie und Philosophie 63 (1988) 79–121 at 87–89.Google Scholar

⁷¹ The LI is edited in Geyer, Philosophische Schriften I (n. 2 above), which should be supplemented by Minio-Paluello, Abaelardiana inedita 3–108, and Dal Pra, Scritti di Logica (n. 62 above) 205–330; the Theologia in Ostlender, H. (ed.), Peter Abaelards Theologia ‘Summi boni’ zum ersten Male vollständig herausgegeben (BGPMA 35.2/3; Münster im Westfalen 1939); the Glossae in Ottaviano, C., Fontes Ambrosiani V (but see n. 2 above); and the LNPS in Geyer, Philosophische Schriften II.Google Scholar

⁷² Compare Glossae, ed. Ottaviano 147.8–148.3 with LPSN, ed. Geyer 534.6–31; 148.21–30 with 534.32–535.5; 149.1–7 with 535.19–26; 149.19–26 with 535.40–536.6; 150.15–22 with 536.11–17; and 150.23–29 with 536.40–537.6. Ottaviano's edition of Glossae is very inaccurate. I enumerate here some serious misreadings and necessary emendations of Tr. IV, cap. II (pp. 147–51): 147.8 differentiis; species predicatur] differentiis specie, praedicatur 14 predicari; predicari enim] predicari, i.e. (enim MS) 19 dictorum dictione] dictioni dictio 148.3 Hic socrates] hoc ?corpus fuit〈 Socrates 6 quoddam] quo?s〈dam 21 secum] sic MS, sed legendum Socratem 27 habent] habet necessarium] necesse 29 Persona hec est] perso?naliter〈, hoc est 30 significata] res subiecti predicata] ?res〈 predicati 149.10 quia] quod 150.1 differentibus〈〈; scilicet] differentibus specie〈〈 8 Que] quod 9 genus] sic MS, sed que legendum 15 hec] hoc 22 quisque quod] ‘quis’ ‘que’ ‘quod’ 22 deprehendit] de persona (p MS) 151.1–2 hec prolatio … tamen vera est … falsa] haec prolatio ‘ “leo” predicatur de pluribus’ tantum (tamen MS) verum est, non etiam falsum. 8 significatus] significativum 12 pluribus] add. leo est species 17 Velut] vere (Vī MS).Google Scholar

⁷³ See the LNPS 544.22. For Master Vasletus, see Lesne, , Les écoles 129–30, Luscombe, D. E., The School of Peter Abelard (Cambridge 1970) 56–57, and other literature referred to there.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Grabmann, M., Bearbeitungen und Auslegungen der aristotelischen Logik aus der Zeit von Peter Abaelard bis Petrus Hispanus: Mitteilungen aus Handschriften deutscher Bibliotheken (Abh. Akad…. Berlin 1937) 24–26.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Green-Pedersen, , Tradition (n. 8 above) 418–31.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Scheppss, G., ‘Zum lateinischen Aristoteles und Boethius,’ Blätter für das bayerische Gymnasialschulwesen 29 (1893) 116–17 (which I have not seen); Brandt, CSEL 48 (n. 28 above) lxvi–lxvii; Geyer, Philosophische Schriften 596 n. 1; Grabmann, Bearbeitungen und Auslegungen 24–26.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Luscombe, D. E., Peter Abelard and His School (King's College Fellowship Dissertation, Cambridge 1962) 225–34.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Fredborg, ‘Tractatus glosarum Prisciani’ (n. 53 above) 22–27.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Namely, between commentaries numbered ‘Β.1’ and ‘B.7a’ in his list. See his comments to B.7a in Tradition 422. The commentary B. 1, which is (7) in our Munich manuscript, being written by a vocalist, as I shall soon show, B.7a might be another vocalist text related to our present concern.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ The most recent collection and discussions of such testimonies is found in E.-H. Kluge, W., ‘Roscelin and the Medieval Problem of Universals,’ Journal of the History of Philosophy 14 (1976) 405–14. And one should still consult Picavet, F., Roscelin, philosophe et théologien d'après la légende et d'après l'histoire (Paris 1911).Google Scholar

⁸¹ Three times to Ma?gister〈 Gos?linus〈 (fol. 178^ra, 178^va, 179^rb), once to Ma?gister〈 (da.[?] MS) Wal. (fol. 178^va), once to Ma?gister〈 W., and once to Ma?gister〈 Ulg. (fol. 179^rb).Google Scholar

⁸² Geyer, , Philosophische Schriften 74.4 reads specierum, MS spā.Google Scholar

⁸³ Green-Pedersen, N. J., ‘The Doctrine of “Maxima Propositio” and “Locus Differentia” in Commentaries from the 12th Century on Boethius’ “Topics,” ’ Studia mediewistyczne 18 (1977) 130. See the excerpts 1–3 from this commentary published by him, ibid. 144–48.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ See the comment to B.1. in Green-Pedersen, Tradition 418.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ See Grabmann, , Bearbeitungen und Auslegungen (n. 74 above) 25, and Green-Pedersen, ‘The Doctrine’ 125.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Hunt, ‘Studies on Priscian’ (n. 52 above) 13 and 31.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Grabmann, , Bearbeitungen und Auslegungen 25. He wrongly locates his two quotations as ‘fol. 67^r’; the actual location is fol. 67^v.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ The Migne edition (PL 64.833A5–6) reads in una eademque, without re or rem. Google Scholar

⁸⁹ As I have discussed in Section 3 above, (7) contains an enigmatic reference to Aristotle's Analytics. Several references to the Analytics of Aristotle and Boethius (!) are also found in (11), fol. 30: ‘Eius (= Boethii) autem intentio est introducere lectorem per has faciliores praeceptiones in sua (!) secunda Analytica (sic MS) sive in Aristotelis Analytica. … Haec vox quae est intentio idem hic significat quod haec alia vox quae est tractatus, omnia videlicet praecepta quae in hoc volumine comprehenduntur, utpote in secunda Analytica tendentia,’ ‘ “Liber” vero idcirco hic dicitur quoniam praecepta in eo entia librat, cum sua materia in Analytica in quae intendunt,’ and on fol. 30^v: ‘ego (= Boethius) statui …, proposui, i.e. dare praecepta meis posteris quae quasi quidam pons eos ad difficultiora Analyticorum secundorum sive Aristotelis praecepta ducerent…. ego statui linquere multa praecepta posteris meis per quae quasi quodam ponte possint venire in res obscurissimas, in, i.e. cognitionum praeceptorumque nimis obscura sunt ab Aristotele data in suis Analyticis sive quae a me sunt clara in meis (= Boethii!) secundis Analyticis.’ A reference to Boethius’ Analytics is also found in a treatise found in MS Vienna, VPL 2459, fol. 105^va–b: ‘Item. Color disgregativum visus est definitio (differentia MS) albedinis, color congregativus /105vb/ visus est definitio (divisio MS) nigredinis, ut ait Boethius in Analyticis.’ Is this an incorrect reference to Aristotle's Topics I (107B29) or VII (153A38)? O: MS Orléans, Bibl. Com. 266 (261), pp. 267^a–278^b Google Scholar

1 Isag., ed. Minio-Paluello 6.24–7.2Google Scholar

2 De int. 7, 17A39–40Google Scholar

3 quamvis] post correct., quis ante correct. OGoogle Scholar

4 nihil] ih’ OGoogle Scholar

5 excludatur] scripsi, excluditur OGoogle Scholar

6 meus] add. et exp. non fu OGoogle Scholar

7 istas] scripsi, istos O, ut videtur Google Scholar

8 haec vox—universale] inverti, non est universale haec vox OGoogle Scholar

9 coniunctim] scripsi, coniuntim (?) in textu et supra lineam conversim (!) scripsit OGoogle Scholar

10 forma] scripsi, fora OGoogle Scholar

11 Nota add. in marg. lineae quae finit in nomen OGoogle Scholar

12 animal est homo] inverti, homo est animal OGoogle Scholar

13 Isag., ed. Minio-Paluello 13.7–83Google Scholar

14 praedicatum] dī^cat OGoogle Scholar

15 naturis] post correct., naturas ante correct. OGoogle Scholar

16 lilio] scripsi, lilium OGoogle Scholar

17 ubinam?Google Scholar

18 praedicatum] OGoogle Scholar

19 potius] supra lineam add. d’ē OGoogle Scholar

20 rem] add. et exp. pre OGoogle Scholar

21 de contento] scripsi, continenti OGoogle Scholar

22 animal] add. et exp. est OGoogle Scholar

23 Cat. 5, 3A36–37Google Scholar

24 substantiae] sub't'e OGoogle Scholar

25 praedicari] scripsi, praedicatum OGoogle Scholar

26 quod vi substantivi] scripsi, Qui subiectum OGoogle Scholar

27 hoc] scripsi, haec OGoogle Scholar

28 op(positio) in marg. add. OGoogle Scholar

29 et] scripsi, in OGoogle Scholar

30 apponi] add. et exp. potest OGoogle Scholar

31 quasi subici] scripsi, que si (ut videtur) subiectum OGoogle Scholar

32 altero] scripsi, aliquo OGoogle Scholar

33 op(positio)] add. in marg. OGoogle Scholar

34 quia] add. et exp. si OGoogle Scholar

35 alio] sic O, sed fortasse altero legendum Google Scholar

36 op(positio)] in marg. add. OGoogle Scholar

37 vide Inst. Gram. 17.44, ed. Keil, H. 135.1–6Google Scholar

38 quidem] q quod solet solvi quod OGoogle Scholar

39 significationum] sig'anū OGoogle Scholar

40 individualis faciat et invertanda indicavit OGoogle Scholar

41 Papae] pappe OGoogle Scholar

42 nominativi] scripsi, nominativus OGoogle Scholar

43 obliqui] scripsi, obliquus OGoogle Scholar

44 op(positio) add. in marg. OGoogle Scholar

45 Cat. 5, 4A10–110Google Scholar

46 Si] add. et exp. diceretur OGoogle Scholar

47 verum] ùūm OGoogle Scholar

48 coniunctim] cōtī OGoogle Scholar

49 autem] scripsi, ut vel vero OGoogle Scholar

50 tantum OGoogle Scholar

51 sine] si OGoogle Scholar

52 oppositio add. in marg. OGoogle Scholar

53 differunt] scripsi, differre OGoogle Scholar

54 homine] scripsi, homo ibi OGoogle Scholar

55 eandem] eundem ante correct. OGoogle Scholar

56 oppositio add. in marg. OGoogle Scholar

57 appositus] scripsi, oppositus OGoogle Scholar

58 si] sic ante correct. OGoogle Scholar

59 hoc] scripsi, homo OGoogle Scholar

60 Quicquid] scripsi, Q q ante correct. OGoogle Scholar

61 componitur] add. et exp. fit OGoogle Scholar

62 consequentia] lectio incerta, ɔsqā OGoogle Scholar

63 videlicet] uidl’ OGoogle Scholar

64 vide De Div., PL 64.888A10–14Google Scholar

65 manum] magnum ante correct. OGoogle Scholar

66 manus] sed partem man. add. et exp., et carnis supra man. scripsit OGoogle Scholar

67 eum] esse add. et exp. OGoogle Scholar

68 esset] esset ante correct. et esse post correct. OGoogle Scholar

69 vide De Div., PL 64.879D12–880A2Google Scholar

70 in] i. OGoogle Scholar

71 fuisse] funsse (!) OGoogle Scholar

72 esse] scripsi, omne OGoogle Scholar

73 calumnia] lectio incerta, columpnia OGoogle Scholar

74 haberetur] habentur OGoogle Scholar

75 animis] scripsi, animalibus OGoogle Scholar

76 par] pars ante correct. OGoogle Scholar

77 per praedicationem] inverti, praedicationem per OGoogle Scholar

78 in quomodo se habet] iquit(!pro in quid) ante correct. OGoogle Scholar

79 nomine] n& OGoogle Scholar

80 pronomine] pn& OGoogle Scholar

81 vel] pl add. et exp. OGoogle Scholar

82 vocabula] uocll'a OGoogle Scholar