BCCCAP00000000000000000000668

THE SYLLOGISTIC OF VALERIANUS MAGNI 207 nil confert illationi: at universalitas seu necessitas maioris proposi– tionis ea est, quae potissime infert conclusionem, qua::n universali– tatem cur potius dicam necessitatem, suo loco expl1cavi... 17 •. It is now evident that « necessario/impossibile » is the sign for the universality of the major premise and its promir:.ent role in inference. Thus as far as the logical form is concerned Valerianus' syllogistic must be qualified as the assertoric one. The reason why he prefers « necessitas » rather than « universalitas », however, must not be sought in the logical form of inference, on the contrary, it must be looked for in Valerianus' conception of the semantics of universal terms and sentences, i.e. in his views concerning « materia syllogismi ». In the place referred to in the above passage ( « suo loco») he says: Entium alia sunt hie et nunc existentia puta "Petrum ", ... "hunc Ieonem "..., alia vero sunt abstracta ab existentia, puta "hominem, leonem "... et alia qualiacunque, considerata non ut existunt hie et nunc, sed ut abstrahunt ab existentia. 18 ... veritas propositionum, qua– rum termini existunt hie et nunc est temporalis et mutabilis v.g.... "Petrus est homo" habuit initium tune, quando Petrus fuit natus et habebit finem Petro mortuo. Propositiones vero, quarum termini sunt abstracti, habent veritatem aeternam et incommutabilem v.g.... « Duo et tria faciunt quinque » sic est vera, ut nunquam fuerit falsa nee potest fieri falsa, ita ut sit necessario aeterna et incommutabilis, quam aeternitatem et incommutabilitatem denoto hoe vocabulo "ne– cessario" hoe modo: ·" Duo et tria necessario faciunt quinque" 19 • Thus it follows that the universal premise « Orone animal est sub– stantia » (11) has the same status as « 2 + 3 = 5 » and can therefore be reformulated with « necessario ». We have now answered the question 1) and a part of the question 2) put forward in the head of this section (2.2). But. why does Valerianus write e.g. in his (11) « Homo est animal» ::-ather than « Omnis homo est animal»? Two explanations, complementary to one another, are possible. 1) A comparison of his (31) with (32) shows clearly that, once the particularity of the minor premise (and of the conclusion) in (32) is expressed by means of « quidam », the omission of« omnis » in the minor premise (and in the conclusion) 11 Opus philosophicum, pars secunda, 56. 18 Cf. the definition of « universalia » as « entia abstracta quatenus affirmantur de pluribus entibus concretis ut de essentia eorum » and the corresponding negative definition of « singularia/particularia » as those that « non possint affirmari de ullo individuo ut de essentia eius » in the tract 5, « Materia syllogismi » (Opus piiilosophicwr. cit. 21s). 1, Opus philosophicum cit. 16.