The hypothesis of an Oxford—Paris split

Terminist logic grew to maturity in the period 1175—1250, a period that was also crucially important in the development of the universities of Paris and of Oxford. Scholars have recently focused their attention on divergences in the early development of the logical and semantic theories that constitute terminist logic, divergences suggesting that one cluster of doctrines is to be associated with Oxford, another with Paris. In view of the very marked differences between British and continental logic in the early fourteenth century, it seems important to investigate whether such differences can be traced backwards into the thirteenth and late twelfth centuries. As I hope to show, such divergences do in fact exist even if they are not so great as to make the traditions of Oxford and of Paris entirely independent.

Although by the turn of the thirteenth century terminist logic was acknowledged by all logicians as a common frame of reference, various interpretations of important issues were still being put forward. If divergences between the traditions of Oxford and Paris are to be established, the evidence is likely to be found in the discussions concerning the various properties of terms, such as supposition, appellation, ampliation, and restriction.

The school of the Parvipontani

Twelfth-century logicians seem to have basically agreed in claiming that an appellative (or common) name may vary its reference (appellatio) according to changes in the tense of the main verb of the proposition; they agreed further in describing this variation as either ‘restriction’ or ‘ampliation’ of the reference or appellation, and in providing rules associated with the three main tenses of the verb: present, past, and future.