In this course we are going to focus on ancient logic, in particular the contributions made by Apuleius (ca. 124-170 AD) and Boethius (480-524 AD) contributions to its development. As to Apuleius, we shall study the treatise named Peri Hermeneias, which has been attributed to him. As to Boethius, we discuss both treatises on categorical logic (in relation to his double commentary on Aristotle’s De Interpretatione, Meiser 1877-1880) and his treatise on hypothetical logic. As it is likely that Apuleius and Boethius are depending on some earlier authors –some less known than them- we are also introducing those authors and their works (either they have survived or not) to recognize a history of this textual tradition. Apuleius and categorical logic: Here we discuss the Apuleian authenticity of the Peri Hermeneias treatise and its particular terminology. We define its main characteristics from a logical viewpoint, and discuss the similarity between this treatise and one written by Boethius (De syllogismo categorico). We resolve the issue of a possible textual dependence between Boethius and Apuleius (Sullivan, 1967), by pointing out a common exposition plan for categorical logic (proto-exposition of categorical logic).

Boethius and his categorical logic: Here we examine the logic of Boethius’ exposition on categorical logic by integrating his twin treatises on categorical logic (De syllogismo categorico and Introductio ad syllogismos categoricos) to his twin commentaries on Aristotle’s De Interpretatione (Correia 2009). We try to define Boethius’ modus operandi and sources by discussing whether it is likely a textual guidance of Marius Victorinus, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Galen, Porphyry, Proclus and Ammonius Hermeias. We discuss Shiel’s hypothesis (1990) that Boethius is taking his comments and explanations from a Greek codex of Aristotle’s Organon heavy annotated in the margins. We also state the differences between De syllogismo categorico and Introductio ad syllogismo categorico by adopting a critical view on Marenbon (2003) and Thomsen Thornqvist (2008a and 2008b) that the latter treatise was a second review of the former one. We discuss the possibility of a categorical syllogistic with indefinite terms and whether Boethius could have had this material for intending to write a further review on categorical syllogistic.

Finally, we conclude by an overview of categorical and hypothetical Aristotelian logic by showing both its doctrinal and formal unity.