FOREWORD

In the course of its development, symbolic logic has regularly been contrasted to the "traditional" logic which has come down to us through the past from the time of Aristotle; and very often the result of the comparison has been to attribute doctrines to that "traditional" logic that do not belong to it--at least to the Aristotelian part--while at the same time denying other doctrines that in point of fact have been explicitly discussed (sometimes very elaborately) by the principal logicians of the Aristotelian-medieval tradition. Consequently, it would seem beneficial for the health of the science to have some of the principal treatises of the better medieval logicians made available. And because Latin is no longer a common language, works originally done in that language must be translated.

             As the title page indicates, the present publication is a translation of St. Thomas' Commentary (completed by Cajetan) on Aristotle's Peri Hermeneias (De interpretatione), which I think will be of considerable interest to modern logicians, especially those who have come to realize that there are limitations to the usefulness of symbolic representations.

             This translation should also prove useful to those logicians whose convictions have never allowed them to recognize the modern symbolic apparatus as being of much benefit in ordinary philosophic considerations, but who have, perhaps subconsciously, become attached to secondary logical works that do not reflect the best efforts of the Peripatetic school. For these people Jean Oesterle's translation should prove to be a fine instrument for a more penetrating grasp of the logic of propositions.

             It is also important to note, I think, that this new text contains a rendering of Aristotle's original work which corresponds in its terminology to the medieval commentary of St. Thomas. This statement should not be construed to mean, however, that Aristotle has been dealt with in an arbitrary and highhanded fashion; on the contrary, Mrs. Oesterle has been at pains to justify her rendering of Aristotle independently of the commentary so as not to distort the original meaning.

             Finally, it is perhaps not unimportant to mention that by this work St. Thomas is introduced to a scientifically minded audience, on natural, scientific grounds, which should help to destroy the myth that he was interested only in theological matters, all of which were decided by appeals to authority. For this purpose, probably no one of his other writings is better proportioned to the modern disposition than a book in formal logic on propositions and their relations. Therefore, it is a great pleasure for me to have assisted in a small way in the production of Mrs. Oesterle's translation. I wish to congratulate her on what I think is a very fine piece of work.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin Richard J. Connell

November 9, 1961