This paper follows up a suggestion by Paul Vincent Spade that there were two Medieval theories of the modes of personal supposition. I suggest that early work by Sherwood and others was a study of quantifiers: their semantics and the effects of context on inferences that can be made from quantified terms. Later, in the hands of Burley and others, it changed into a study of something else, a study of what I call global quantificational effect. For example, although the (...) quantifier in ‘¬∀xPx’ is universal, it can be seen globally as having an existential effect; this is because the formula containing it is equivalent to ‘∃x¬Px’. The notion of global effect can be explained in terms of the modern theory of normal forms. I suggest that early authors were studying quantifiers, and the terminology of the theory of personal supposition is a classification of kinds of quantifiers. In this theory, to say that a term has distributive supposition is to say, roughly, that it is quantified by a universal quantifying sign. Later authors turned this into a theory of global quantificational effect. In the later theory, to say that a term has distributive supposition is to say that the overall effect is as if the term were universally quantified with a quantifier taking (relatively) wide scope. The difference between these two approaches is illustrated by the fact that the term ‘man’ is classified as having distributive ("universal") supposition in ‘Not every man is running’ in the earlier theory, whereas in the later theory that term does not have distributive supposition; it has determinate ("existential") supposition. In the paper I explain these options, and I argue from several texts that the earlier and later medieval theories actually worked like this. In an appendix I make further efforts to clarify the obscure early accounts, as well as the nineteenth century "doctrine of distribution". The last section of the paper discusses the "purpose(s)" of supposition theory. (shrink)

Philotheus boehner's "medieval logic" gives the impression that medieval supposition theory and modern quantification theory agree on their interpretation of particular propositions but differ on their interpretation of universal propositions. Matthews shows that this impression is mistaken: they differ on both particular and universal propositions, And the basic reason is that the medievals quantify over terms while modern logicians quantify over variables. (staff).

(1) (p. 31) (1.1) “Some things that are said are said with complexity, and others are said without complexity.”3 Those that are said without complexity are, for example, ‘man’, ‘animal’. Those that are said with complexity are, for example, ‘A man runs’, ‘An animal runs’.4 (2) It is plain from this that the incomplex is part of the complex.

_William of Sherwood's Introduction to Logic _ was first published in 1966. Minnesota Archive Editions uses digital technology to make long-unavailable books once again accessible, and are published unaltered from the original University of Minnesota Press editions. The _Introduction to Logic _ by William of Sherwood, of which this is the first English translation, is the oldest surviving treatise which contains a treatment of the most distinctive and interesting medieval contributions to logic and semantics. Sherwood was a master at Oxford (...) and Paris in the thirteenth century and the author of several logical treatises. Besides presenting material of interest in its own right, this volume is useful as an introduction to the study of those aspects of medieval philosophy that are most pertinent to the interests of contemporary philosophers. Professor Kretzmann has provided biographical, bibliographical, and philosophical backgrounds on Sherwood and an analytical table of contents. (shrink)