1 Boehner(cid:146)s Text of Walter Burley(cid:146)s De puritate artis logicae: Some Corrections and Queries Paul Vincent Spade Indiana University I am preparing an English translation of both the Tractatus longior and the Tractatus brevior of Walter Burley(cid:146)s De puritate artis logicae for the (cid:147)Yale Library of Medieval Philosophy.(cid:148) My translation is based of course on the 1955 critical edition by Philotheus Boehner, the only reasonably reliable text available.1 Nevertheless, in preparing my translation, I have had several occasions to question or correct readings in Boehner(cid:146)s edition. In some in- stances the corrections are merely obvious typographical errors, but in others there was something more substantive at stake. The text of the Tractatus brevior is particularly problematic in places, since there are fewer extant manuscripts on which to base an edition. Through the courtesy of Leonard E. Boyle OP, the director of the Bib- lioteca Apostolica Vaticana, I have obtained a microfilm copy of the relevant portion of MS Vat. lat. 3066, which contains copies of both the longer and the shorter treatise. In the case of the shorter treatise, this is one of only two extant manuscript copies, and is therefore especially valuable. In the following pages, I list a number of corrections to and queries for Boehner(cid:146)s text of both the longer and the shorter treatises. It must be empha- sized that these corrections and queries are by no means based on a systematic collation of all the available manuscripts, but only on the single Vatican copy I have seen. Boehner(cid:146)s text is reliable enough in most instances that a new edi- tion is surely not needed. Nevertheless, I am reasonably confident of the points I list below. I also include further information about, and in some cases cor- rections to, some of the fontes identified by Boehner. 1 WalterBurleigh[=Burley]DepuritateartislogicaeTractatuslongior,WithaRe- vised Edition of the Tractatus brevior,Philotheus Boehner, ed., ((cid:147)Franciscan Institute Publi- cations,(cid:148)TextSeriesNo.9;St.Bonaventure,NY:TheFranciscanInstitute,1955).Asthistitle suggests,theTractatusbreviorhadalreadybeenpublishedinapreliminaryedition.SeeWal- terBurleigh[=Burley]Depuritateartislogicae,PhilotheusBoehner,ed.,((cid:147)FranciscanInsti- tutePublications,(cid:148)TextSeriesNo.1;St.Bonaventure,NY:TheFranciscanInstitute1951). Copyright ' 1998 by Paul Vincent Spade. This document may be copied and circulated freely, in printed or digital form, provided only that this notice of copyright is included with allcopies. 2 References to Boehner(cid:146)s edition are given below by page and lines numbers, separated by a period. I use the siglum (cid:145)Y(cid:146), as Boehner does, for Vat. lat. 3066. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, Y agrees with the text as pub- lished in Boehner(cid:146)s edition for the words discussed below. The words of Boehner(cid:146)s edition are underlined; my correction or query follows. The Tractatus longior p. 5.7 Homo currit: Read (cid:145)Omnis homo currit(cid:146) with Y 34rb41. The (cid:145)omnis(cid:146) is needed, since it is (cid:147)proposition A(cid:148) that is being referred to, and that was (cid:145)Om- nis homo currit(cid:146), as stipulated at pp. 4.36(cid:150)5.1. p. 5.35(cid:150)36 syncategorematice (second occurrence): Read (cid:145)categorematice(cid:146) with Y 34va7. This sentence discusses the first alternative of the disjunction (cid:145)categorematice vel syncategorematice(cid:146) (p. 5.35). The second alternative, syn- categorematice, is discussed in the next sentence (pp. 37(cid:150)6.3). p. 8.14 Boethius qui dicit: Rebus quas vidit nomina imponit: Boehner gives a reference to Boethius(cid:146) second commentary on the De interpretatione, PL 64.301c. But PL 64.301C is in the first commentary, not the second, and moreover does not say what Burley attributes to him. I have been unable to find the quotation, or any close approximation of it, in any other passage in Boethius. The closest I have come is his In Categorias Aristotelis, I, PL 64.159b: (cid:147)Prima igitur illa fuit nominum positio, per quam vel intellectui su- biecta vel sensibus designaret.(cid:148) p. 9.32 termino simplici: I conjecture (cid:145)singulari(cid:146). The edition(cid:146)s (cid:145)termino sim- plici(cid:146) makes no sense here. Compare the corresponding passage at p. 3.7, which has (cid:145) singulari(cid:146). p. 10.9 pro modo familiori: The (cid:145)pro(cid:146) seems awkward in the context. One would have expected (cid:145)in(cid:146) or the simple ablative. p. 12.30 dignissima creatura creaturam: I conjecture (cid:145)creaturarum(cid:146) for (cid:145)crea- turam(cid:146). Compare pp. 11.17, 19, 27(cid:150)28; 12.26, 32, 36; 13.34. Y 35ra27 has simply (cid:145)dignissima creaturarum(cid:146). p. 18.7 verificantur: Read (cid:145)verificatur(cid:146) with Y 35va14. The subject is (cid:145)esse corruptibile(cid:146) in p. 18.6. p. 18.13 corruptibili: Read (cid:145)corruptibile(cid:146) with Y 35va17. The nominative is needed. Copyright ' 1998 by Paul Vincent Spade. This document may be copied and circulated freely, in printed or digital form, provided only that this notice of copyright is included with allcopies. 3 p. 23.39 (cid:145)Aliquis homo semper fuit(cid:146): Add (cid:145)Aliquis homo semper erit(cid:146), fol- lowing Y 35va37. (Y goes on to add another (cid:145)aliquis homo(cid:146) after (cid:145)erit(cid:146), but these words seem out of place.) The future-tensed sentence is needed to com- plete the example. p. 24.38 distributive: The point of the example would seem to require that (cid:145)et mobiliter(cid:146) be added. p. 30.10 animali: I conjecture (cid:145)risibili(cid:146). We are talking about the second con- junct of the example at p. 30.8. p. 32.6 aut relativa non habent suppositiones: I conjecture that these words should be omitted. They appears to make no sense in the context, and do not occur in the closely parallel passage of Burley(cid:146)s De suppositionibus. See Ste- phen F. Brown, (cid:147)Walter Burleigh(cid:146)s Treatise De suppositionibus and Its Influ- ence on William of Ockham.(cid:148) Franciscan Studies 32 (1972), pp. 15-64, at § (2.64). p. 34.4 sequeretur: Reading (cid:145)sequitur(cid:146) with the variant recorded in the appa- ratus. p. 36.16 in conclusione. Cum: Repunctuate by moving the period to before the (cid:145)in conclusione(cid:146). p. 39.5(cid:150)9 Et cum … falsum est: I conjecture that these words can simply be deleted. They merely repeat the exact sense of pp. 38.39(cid:150)39.2. p. 45.30 singulares: Read (cid:145)singularem(cid:146) with Y 38ra18. What follows is only one singular. p. 51.11 homo: Read (cid:145)nigrum(cid:146). The (cid:145)homo(cid:146) makes no sense in the context of the example. Y 38va26 has (cid:145)homo vel nigrum(cid:146) here, apparently reflecting some awareness of the problem and probably recognizing a variant reading. p. 56.6 secundum adiacens vel tertium: Read simply (cid:145)tertium adiacens(cid:146). The reference of the (cid:145)cum ergo dicitur(cid:146) in line 5 is back to p. 55.3(cid:150)6, where (cid:145)est(cid:146) is definitely not said to be taken secundum adiacens. I suspect the disjunctive (cid:145)secundum adiacens vel tertium(cid:146) in Boehner(cid:146)s text (and in Y 39ra2) reflects variant readings in the manuscript tradition. p. 57.1(cid:150)4 sed haec est de inesse: (cid:145)Aliquod possibile est hominem currere(cid:146), ergo propositio, in quam convertitur, erit de inesse; ergo haec est de inesse: (cid:145)Hominem currere est possibile(cid:146), secundum quod possibile est praedicatum: Something has gone wrong in these lines. The argument is part of an attempt to show that the minor premise of the syllogism (cid:145)Omne contingens est possi- Copyright ' 1998 by Paul Vincent Spade. This document may be copied and circulated freely, in printed or digital form, provided only that this notice of copyright is included with allcopies. 4 bile, omnem hominem currere est contingens, ergo omnem hominem currere est possibile(cid:146) (p. 56.34(cid:150)35) is assertoric (see p. 56.37), and not about the con- tingent, as it would be if the modes in modal propositions were predicates (see p. 56.36). But the minor of the latter syllogism has (cid:145)contingens(cid:146), not (cid:145)possi- bile(cid:146), as its predicate, and (cid:145)omnem hominem currere(cid:146), not simply (cid:145)hominem currere(cid:146), as its subject. Y 39ra21(cid:150)22 agrees with Boehner, p.57.1(cid:150)4 (except for trivial variants). On the other hand, for the original syllogism at p. 56.34(cid:150) 35, Y 39ra18 has: (cid:147)Omne possibile est contingens; omnem hominem currere est possibile; igitur, omnem hominem currere est contingens.(cid:148) In this version, the minor premise does have (cid:145)possibile(cid:146) instead of (cid:145)contingens(cid:146) as its predicate. But the subject is still (cid:145)omnem hominem currere(cid:146) and not merely (cid:145)hominem currere(cid:146). Moreover, the words (cid:145)minor de contingenti(cid:146) at p. 56.36 (= Y 39ra19) require that the predicate of the minor in the original syllogism be (cid:145)contingens(cid:146), as Boehner has it, not (cid:145)possibile(cid:146) with Y. The remainder of the paragraph (p. 57.4(cid:150)9 = Y 39ra23(cid:150)25) presupposes that p. 57.1(cid:150)4 reads as it stands in Boehner(cid:146)s edition and in Y. In light of all this, it is not clear what should be done, except to recognize the problems. Fortunately, the overall sense of the passage is clear enough. It may be that Burley simply lost track of his example. p. 59.1(cid:150)2 et ad suum oppositum ad determinabile: Y 39rb9 has (cid:147)et ad suum oppositum et ad determinabile.(cid:148) Neither reading makes sense in the context. I conjecture (cid:147)et ad oppositum determinabilis.(cid:148) p. 66.18: hypotheticae: I conjecture (cid:145)categoricae(cid:146). Y 39vb28 agrees with the edition. p. 69.1 consquens: Read (cid:145)consequens(cid:146) (a simple typographical error). p. 77.5 differentiae: Read (cid:145)differentia(cid:146) with Y 40vb37. We need the singular. p. 81.6 nulla: Add (cid:145)sua(cid:146) following the variant recorded in Boehner(cid:146)s appara- tus, interpreting that variant not as a correction, as Boehner does, but as an addition. For confirmation, see p. 87.3, where Burley is replying to the argu- ment given here. p. 82.1 quod: This word should be omitted in reading the passage for sense. The proposition in question does not denote that such-and-such or that so-and- so (cid:151) with the result that is denotes in one or another of alternative ways. Rather it denotes in one disjunctive way, that such-and-such-or-so-and-so. I do not suggest that the word was not present in the original of the Tractatus lon- gior (and so that it should be deleted in the edition), although strictly speaking Copyright ' 1998 by Paul Vincent Spade. This document may be copied and circulated freely, in printed or digital form, provided only that this notice of copyright is included with allcopies. 5 it is out of place. We are often just as careless about inserting an extra (cid:145)that(cid:146) in English. p. 82.28 Sortem: Read (cid:145)hominem(cid:146) with Y 41rb30. p. 84.15 risibilis (both occurrences): Read (cid:145)rudibilis(cid:146) with the variant recorded in Boehner(cid:146)s apparatus, and in agreement with Y 41va5. p. 85.23 termino: Omit this word, following Y 41va31. p. 91.19 Boethius: The reference given in the apparatus is incorrect. It is to Boethius, De syllogismo hypophetico I, PL 64, cols. 85 ff. But those columns do not contain the De syllogismo hypothetico. The correct reference is col. 845a to at least col. 848c. (The end of the relevant passage is hard to pinpoint.) A more recent edition may be found in Boethius, De hypotheticis syllogismis, Luca Obertello, ed., ((cid:147)Istituto di filosofia dell(cid:146)universit(cid:224) di Parma, (cid:145)Logicalia(cid:146): Testi classici di logica,(cid:148) vol. 1; Brescia: Paideia editrice, 1969), II.I.7.60(cid:150) II.III.8.94, pp. 258(cid:150)274. p. 92.17 sculicet: Read (cid:145)scilicet(cid:146). A simple typographical error. p. 94.22 consequentis: Read (cid:145)antecedentis(cid:146) with Y 42rb46. p. 100.39 minore: Read (cid:145)maiore(cid:146) with Y 43ra2. p. 101.34 si: Read (cid:145)scilicet(cid:146) with Y 43ra21. (cid:145)Si(cid:146) makes no syntactical sense here. p. 103.7 scienta: Read (cid:145)scientia(cid:146). A simple typographical error. p. 104.13 de subiecto conditionalis: I conjecture (cid:145)de subiecto antecedentis conditionalis(cid:146). Conditionals don(cid:146)t have subjects, although their antecedents and consequents do, if they are categoricals. The addition of (cid:145)antecedentis(cid:146) is required by the example given at p. 104.13(cid:150)16. p. 107.4 intentia: Read (cid:145)intentio(cid:146) with Y 43rb56. A simple typographical error. p. 114.3 imponere: Read (cid:145)praeponere(cid:146) with Y 44ra19. For confirmation, see p. 114.4. p. 118.11 enim: Read (cid:145)etiam(cid:146) with Y 44rb50. The sentence does not in any way explain what went before, so that the edition(cid:146)s (cid:145)enim(cid:146) is out of place. p. 119.20 hujus: I conjecture (cid:145)hujusmodi(cid:146). Y 44va17 has (cid:145)illa(cid:146), which is also possible. In any case, the genitive (cid:145)hujus(cid:146) is out of place. p. 12.34 infertur: I conjecture a homoeoteleuton after this word. Add: (cid:147)alia pars. Sed his ex disiunctiva cum contradictorio alterius partis infertur.(cid:148) Some Copyright ' 1998 by Paul Vincent Spade. This document may be copied and circulated freely, in printed or digital form, provided only that this notice of copyright is included with allcopies. 6 such emendation is required by the sense of the argument at p. 120.34(cid:150)35. Y 44va44 agrees with Boehner(cid:146)s edition. p. 126.6(cid:150)7 si tamen non sit idem antecedens in maiore et consequens in mi- nore: Although Y 45ra16(cid:150)17 agrees with the edition here, these words make nonsense of the argument. I suggest either omitting them entirely, or else de- leting the (cid:145)non(cid:146) and changing the (cid:145)si tamen(cid:146) to (cid:145)quamvis(cid:146) or (cid:145)etiam si(cid:146), yield- ing: (cid:147)quamvis [or etiam si] sit idem antecedens in maiore et consequens in minore.(cid:148) p. 129.3(cid:150)4 fuerunt verae pro eodem tempore, scilicet pro tempore praesenti: Follow the variant reading in Vat. lat. 2146 (Boehner(cid:146)s MS V), as recorded in the apparatus. (Note that the apparatus suggests that the entire variant recorded there is a substitute for the one word (cid:145)fuerunt(cid:146) in the edition. Without having seen Vat. lat. 2146, I nevertheless suspect this is an error, and that the variant recorded is a substitute for the entire remainder of the sentence.) Y 45rb11(cid:150)12 agrees with Boehner(cid:146)s edition. p. 131.27 tantus: Read (cid:145)tantum(cid:146) with Y 45rb56. p. 136.31 hominem esse animal: Read (cid:145)animal esse hominem(cid:146) with Y 45vb27. p. 139.10 probationem: The sense requires (cid:145)improbationem(cid:146). (See also the following two entries.) p. 139.12 utrumque: Omit the word, in agreement with the variant recorded in the apparatus. The sense from the context seems to be that a proposition p that (cid:147)includes opposites(cid:148) implies its opposite (that is, it implies the opposite of p), not that it implies the two opposites it includes (although that is true too). Note that in the apparatus entry for this word, Boehner adds (cid:147)In altero tractatu (LPA) L add. ut patet.(cid:148) It is not clear what this refers to. There is a somewhat similar passage in the Tractatus brevior (p. 249.15(cid:150)21), for which (cid:145)L(cid:146) is the siglum for one of the MSS, but the apparatus there shows no (cid:145)ut patet(cid:146). Moreover, (cid:145)A(cid:146) does not refer to a MS of the Tractatus brevior, and (cid:145)P(cid:146) is not one of Boehner(cid:146)s MS sigla at all. (See Boehner(cid:146)s edition, pp. xv(cid:150)xvi.) I con- jecture that (cid:145)LPA(cid:146) simply means (cid:147)Logicae de puritate artis.(cid:148) (See also Boehner(cid:146)s apparatus at pp. 141.7, 146.15.) It is worth mentioning in connec- tion with the immediately preceding entry (about p. 139.10) that in the passage just cited from the Tractatus brevior (in particular, at p. 249.18), the two sur- viving MSS both have (cid:145)probationem(cid:146) where (cid:145)improbationem(cid:146) is required. (Boehner has emended there accordingly.) It is striking that this substitution of (cid:145)probationem(cid:146) for (cid:145)improbationem(cid:146) occurs in both treatises in the context of Copyright ' 1998 by Paul Vincent Spade. This document may be copied and circulated freely, in printed or digital form, provided only that this notice of copyright is included with allcopies. 7 the rule (cid:147)omnis propositio includens opposita infert suum oppositum.(cid:148) (See also the following entry.) p. 139.13(cid:150)14 Ista enim propositio: (cid:145)Tu es ubique(cid:146), includit opposita, et ideo infert suum oppositum.: This sentence seems entirely gratuitous, and inter- rupts the flow of the argument. But note that in the Tractatus brevior, the pas- sage cited in the immediately preceding entry (p. 249.15(cid:150)21) contains the same example, and that it is not at all out of place there. This and the facts dis- cussed in the two immediately preceding entries, above, suggest that here, at p. 139.10(cid:150)14, Burley is relying loosely on the Tractatus brevior, p. 249.15(cid:150)21, and is being a little careless about what he is taking from it. In particular, it suggests that the (cid:145)probationem(cid:146) for (cid:145)improbationem(cid:146) at p. 249.19 was a mis- take in Burley(cid:146)s own copy of the Tracatus brevior, and that it was simply copied over intact into the Tractatus longior at p. 139.10. All this, of course, remains speculative. p. 140.32 haec: Read (cid:145)hoc(cid:146) with Y 46ra46, and in agreement with the variant recorded in the apparatus. The reference is not to (cid:147)haec [propositio](cid:148) (cid:151) i. e., it is not the proposition that is signified, but rather the claim ((cid:145)hoc(cid:146), in the neu- ter) that only the proposition (cid:145)Deus est deus(cid:146) is necessary. p. 141.6 Deum (second occurrence): I conjecture (cid:145)deus(cid:146) (cid:151) nominative instead of accusative. The accusative can be construed, but not with the sense that the sentence goes on to give. p. 141.17 obliquum dictum: I conjecture (cid:145)obliquum (cid:147)deum(cid:148)(cid:146). As the rest of the argument indicates, what is being claimed to be the subject here is not the whole (cid:147)dictum(cid:148) (cid:151) i. e., not the whole oratio obliqua expression (cid:145)Tantum deum esse deum(cid:146) or even (cid:145)Deum esse deum(cid:146) (cid:151) but only the subject term of that oratio obliqua. p. 143.15 Tantum: I conjecture that the word should be omitted. I cannot make good sense of the sentence with the word; the exclusion is already conveyed by the (cid:145)soli(cid:146) later in the line. Nevertheless, Y 46rb36 agrees with the edition. p. 143.29 aliquid: Read (cid:145)alicui(cid:146) with Y 46rb46. (cid:145)Aliquid could only be con- strued as the subject of (cid:145)addatur(cid:146). But the subject of that has to be an implicit (cid:145)exclusio(cid:146). Compare also (cid:145)aliqui speciei(cid:146) at p. 143.24. p. 143.30 soli: I conjecture (cid:145)solum(cid:146) here, to parallel the construction (cid:145)solum individua(cid:146) at p. 143.28. Alternatively, the word could be omitted entirely, in agreement with Y 46rb46. Copyright ' 1998 by Paul Vincent Spade. This document may be copied and circulated freely, in printed or digital form, provided only that this notice of copyright is included with allcopies. 8 p. 143.34 animali: I conjecture (cid:145)homine(cid:146), to conform to the rule at p. 143.28(cid:150) 29. The example is of an exclusion added to an individual-term ((cid:145)Socrates(cid:146)), not to a species-term. p. 147.33 opponitur: The apparatus lists variants here. But the variant listed for Y belongs instead to (cid:145)opponitur(cid:146) in the following line, line 34. (I conjec- ture that the other variants also belong with (cid:145)opponitur(cid:146) in line 34, but I have not seen copies of those MSS.) p. 147.36 contrariantur: I conjecture (cid:145)contradictuntur(cid:146), in order to conform to what is said at p. 147.33(cid:150)34. p. 153.2(cid:150)3 ex illa universali posita loco maioris cum minore prioris syllogismi posita loco minoris: I conjecture (cid:145)maiore(cid:146) for (cid:145)minore(cid:146). The emendation seems required by the sense of the argument. For confirmation, see (cid:145)maiore(cid:146) at p. 153.7. Y 47ra44(cid:150)45 omits the words (cid:145)maioris … loco(cid:146) entirely. p. 154.15 Si vero utraque praemissa sit exclusiva affirmativa: I conjecture (cid:145)Si vero in utraque praemissa sit exclusio affirmata(cid:146). The text as it stands in the edition, together with the immediately following clause (cid:145)et verbum principale negetur in utraque(cid:146) (lines 15(cid:150)16), yields an impossible description. Y 47ra64 agrees with the edition. p. 154.20 non-homo: Read (cid:145)tantum(cid:146) before this word, in agreement with Y 47rb1. p. 154.26 princidale: Read (cid:145)principale(cid:146). A simple typographical error. p. 156.37 oppositis: Read (cid:145)opposito(cid:146) with Y 47rb48. p. 170.6 excipitur: I conjecture that after this word something like (cid:147)et Socrates excipitur in ista (cid:145)Omnis homo praeter Sortem excipitur(cid:146)(cid:148) needs to be added. The addition is required by the argument. For confirmation, see p. 170.14(cid:150)15. Y 48va3 agrees with Boehner(cid:146)s edition. p. 170.33 praeter unum: Read (cid:145)prolatum(cid:146) with Y 48va19. For confirmation, see p. 170.29 and the reference back to this passage at p. 171.17. p. 171.16 unum: I conjecture the words (cid:147)est verum; ergo, quodlibet enuntia- bile prolatum aliud(cid:148) (or the equivalent) after this word. Plainly there is a break of sense in the text as Boehner has it. p. 171.23 Omnis: I conjecture (cid:145)aliquis(cid:146) for this word, to conform to the exam- ple. The sentence (cid:145)Aliquis homo videt omnem asinum(cid:146) is supposed to be the prejacent of the exceptive proposition quoted here, which means that the ex- ceptive must begin with (cid:145)aliquis(cid:146), not with (cid:145)omnis(cid:146). Copyright ' 1998 by Paul Vincent Spade. This document may be copied and circulated freely, in printed or digital form, provided only that this notice of copyright is included with allcopies. 9 p. 171.37 exceptis: Read (cid:145)exceptivis(cid:146) with Y 48va41. p. 172.22(cid:150)26 [Probatur … sophisma verum]: Follow the text as given in the apparatus to Boehner(cid:146)s edition for these lines. The reading in the apparatus conforms to Y 48va53(cid:150)54. The text as it stands in Boehner(cid:146)s edition appears only in an abbreviated Erfurt copy of the Tractatus longior, and makes no ar- gumentative sense in the context. p. 173.5 si: I conjecture (cid:145)nisi(cid:146). Otherwise, the sentence does not conform with the rest of the argument. p. 173.6 si: Ditto. p. 173.13 et: Omit the word, which makes no syntactical sense here. p. 174.1 executive: Read (cid:145)consecutive(cid:146) with Y 48vb12. p. 174.11 immobilitatem: Read (cid:145)immobilitat(cid:146) with Y 48vb18. p. 174.15 alium asinum praeter Brunellum: Read (cid:145)asinum alium a Brunello(cid:146). The reading in Boehner(cid:146)s text would expound an exceptive by an exceptive. Y 48vb20(cid:150)21 has (cid:147)asinum praeter Brunellum vel alium a Brunello,(cid:148) apparently reflecting variant readings in the MS tradition. p. 174.21 instanti: Add (cid:147)igitur nihil est verum nisi in hoc instanti(cid:148) after this word, following Y 48vb22. (The omission in the edition can be explained by a homoeoteleuton.) Without the words, there is no argument here at all, but only a single proposition, so that there can hardly be a (cid:147)fallacy of the consequent,(cid:148) as the text claims. p. 176.17 et: I conjecture (cid:145)id est(cid:146) for this word. Otherwise the sentence is merely a repetition of the preceding one, whereas the word (cid:145)expositive(cid:146) in line 16 suggests that the sentence is to be an analysis of the preceding one. p. 181.10 asinus (first occurrence): Follow the variant reading. The fourth al- ternative is required since the corresponding affirmative proposition has four exponents. p. 183.4 vel (first occurrence): Omit this word, in agreement with Y 49rb50. p. 184.9 est (first occurrence): Add (cid:145)vera(cid:146) with the variant recorded in Boehner(cid:146)s apparatus, and also in accordance with Y 49va2. p. 185.27 reduplicativa: I conjecture (cid:145)affirmativa(cid:146) after this word. For confir- mation, see pp. 185.31(cid:150)186.10. p. 193.2 est: Add (cid:145)et hanc (cid:147)Hoc instans corrumpitur quando est,(cid:148)(cid:146) or some equivalent. Such an addition is required by the sense of the context, which Copyright ' 1998 by Paul Vincent Spade. This document may be copied and circulated freely, in printed or digital form, provided only that this notice of copyright is included with allcopies. 10 talks (ibid.) about expounding (cid:145)utrumque(cid:146), so that two exponible propositions are needed. Y 50ra59 agrees with the edition. p. 197.29 verbi: Add (cid:145)de(cid:146) after this word, in agreement with Y 50rb37. The following word (cid:145)futuro(cid:146) cannot be plausibly construed otherwise. p. 195.13 de cetero: I conjecture (cid:145)sine medio(cid:146) here, to conform to the previous expositions of (cid:145)desinit(cid:146). See pp. 192.15, 17(cid:150)18, 20, 22; 193.19, 21. Compare the note on p. 197.1, below. p. 196.18 (cid:145)dum(cid:146): Add (cid:145)et (cid:147)quia(cid:148)(cid:146) after this word. We need the third alternative to conform to line 11. p. 197.1 de cetero: I conjecture (cid:145)sine medio(cid:146) here, to conform to the previous expositions of (cid:145)desinit(cid:146). Compare the note on p. 195.13, above. The Tractatus brevior p. 202.26 immobiliter: The example in the immediately following lines (pp. 202.27(cid:150)203.4) requires (cid:145)mobiliter(cid:146). Y 25rb25 agrees with the edition.2 p. 202.30(cid:150)31 igitur si Sortes (!) currit, Plato currit: (cid:145)Sortes(cid:146) and (cid:145)Plato(cid:146) should be reversed, to conform with the parallel passage at p. 67.36(cid:150)37. pp. 203.36(cid:150)204.1: te esse animal … est verum: Adopt the reading suggested by Gabriel Nuchelmans, (cid:147)Walter Burleigh on the Conclusion that You Are An Ass,(cid:148) Vivarium 32 (1994), pp. 93(cid:150)101 at p. 96: (cid:147)verum; igitur consequens est verum.(cid:148) p. 204.27(cid:150)28 quia … sequitur: Adopt the variant in the apparatus, following Y 25va15. p. 204.28 esse (second occurrence): Read (cid:145)est(cid:146) for (cid:145)esse(cid:146), following Y 25va15. p. 205.8 non: Delete the word, following Nuchelmans, p. 96. p. 205.12(cid:150)15 unus … Latinum: Adopt the variant readings in accordance with Nuchelmans, p. 97: (cid:147)bonus: quod ille sciat illam vocem: (cid:145)Tu es homo(cid:146) et istud scit laicus ignorans Latinum; et quod iste sciat, quod realiter importatur per hanc propositionem: (cid:145)Tu es homo(cid:146), et hoc nescit nisi clericus." 2 IamgratefultoNormanKretzmannforcallingthiscorrectiontomyattention.The passage is translated correctly in Norman Kretzmann and Eleonore Stump, trans.The Cam- bridgeTranslationsofMedievalPhilosophicalTexts,VolumeOne:LogicandthePhilosophy ofLanguage,(NewYork,N.Y.:CambridgeUniversityPress,1988),atp.288. Copyright ' 1998 by Paul Vincent Spade. This document may be copied and circulated freely, in printed or digital form, provided only that this notice of copyright is included with allcopies.