Topic and consequences in Ockham's logic.

Abstract

The late Fr. Boehner once suggested that the mediaeval theory of Consequences had its origin in the study of the Topics. For this he cited Ockham as "a witness and a contemporary" (PB. 54).* I have shown in a previous paper that this development was already well under way in Abelard's analysis of the Topics (BI). In this paper I propose to analyze that part of Ockham's theory of Consequences which can be shown to be based on the Topical tradition that runs back through Peter of Spain and Abelard to Boethius (in his work De Differentiis Topicis). Although this work was ultimately based on the Topic a of Aristotle (through the commentary of Themistius, which Boethius summarizes), it provided the standard auctoritas for the mediaeval Topical tradition, not only during the centuries in which the Aristotelian text was unavailable, but also even after its recovery in the 12th century. This I shall refer to as the Boethian Topical tradition, as distinguished from the Aristotelian, by which I shall mean Topical analysis based immediately upon the text of Aristotle. Ockham is something of a rarity among mediaeval logicians in that he deals, in separate parts, with both the Boethian and the Aristotelian tradition of the Topics. The treatment of the Topics in such representative works as those of William of Shyreswood, Peter of Spain, Albert of Saxony, John Buridan seems to be confined entirely to the Boethian tradition. In this paper I shall be dealing primarily with Ockham's treatment of the Boethian tradition. I shall show how he recast that tradition so as to obtain distinctions for his theory of consequences. It will then appear that Boehner was at least over-hasty and inaccurate in saying that Ockham has only a "loose arrangement" and * wisely omitted" a systematic ordering of the Topical consequences. (PB. 55). Furthermore, previous study of Ockham's theory of Consequences-Salamucha, Boehner, Moody-has paid practically no attention to those Consequences which derive immediately from Topical analysis. Yet these in quantity alone far outweigh all the others. Thus Boehner in his exposition draws upon only one of the forty-*Such citations are to the table of references at the end of the paper.