Summa Grammatica

The Summa Grammatica^{n 1} (Latin for "Overview of Grammar"; c. AD 1240² or c. 1250)³ was one of the earlier works on Latin grammar and Aristotelian logic by the medieval English philosopher Roger Bacon.⁴ It is primarily noteworthy for its exposition of a kind of universal grammar.²

The work is apparently a series of lectures given by Bacon for the mandatory classes on Priscian's work On Construction (Books XVII & XVIII of his Institutes of Grammar) at the University of Paris,⁵ where he taught in the 1230s and '40s. Much more than Bacon's later linguistic works, the Summa Grammatica lies in the mainstream of 13th-century analysis.³ The first part borrows directly from Robert Kilwardby's commentary on Priscian.⁶⁷ More generally, the work reflects the speculative grammar taught at Oxford in such 13th-century works as the Logica cum Sit Nostra.⁸ It is probable that the final draft of the work which Bacon mentions in his Communia Naturalium⁹ was never completed.¹⁰ His Greek and Hebrew Grammars and Compendium of Philosophy may have been considered as part of it.¹⁰

It survived in two manuscripts: P and W. P is a copy in book hand evidently intended for a personal library.¹¹ W is a students' copy written in the informal hand of the late 13th or early 14th century.⁵¹²

The work describes figurative language, rhetorical devices, and irregular Latin grammar¹³ using "sophisms" or illustrative examples.¹⁴ It aims to complement Bacon's students' required readings of Priscian's work On Construction by presenting its important points in a more thorough and logical order.¹⁴ It assumes a mastery of standard grammatical rules which the students would have already learnt as glomerelli.¹⁵ It most frequently cites Priscian, but more often adopts the solutions of Peter Helias.¹⁵

The first section lays out rules regarding grammatical agreement and the rhetorical devices antithesis,¹⁶¹⁷ synthesis,¹⁸¹⁹ procatalepsis,²⁰²¹⁸ From the Aristotelian notion that "art imitates nature to the extent that it can"²²²³ and under the influence of Averroës's commentaries,⁸ Bacon argues that nouns and pronouns can be distinguished from verbs and adverbs owing to the distinction between permanent and successive things.⁸ Further, verbs constitute a kind of movement from the subject^{n 2} to the object^{24n 3} which imposes obligations on the grammar.⁸ For instance, owing to their origin from verbs, Bacon considers that participles and infinitives are too unstable to function properly as the object of a sentence, as "nothing which is in motion can come to rest in something in motion, no motion being able to complete itself in something in motion".⁸

The second section deals with non-figurative constructions including impersonals,²⁵²⁶ gerundives,²⁷²⁸ interjections,²⁹³⁰ and ablative absolutes.³¹³²⁸

The third section³³ covers illustrative examples by topic in greater or less detail⁸ and more or less at random.³⁴ The primary ones are Moris erat Persis ducibus tunc temporis omnem ducere in arma domum,³⁵ Vestes quas geritis sordida lana fuit,³⁶ Amatus sum vel fui,³⁷ Vado Romam que est pulcra civitas,³⁸ Video centum homines uno minus,³⁹ Lupus est in fabula,⁴⁰ In nostro magistro habet bonum hominem,⁴¹ Margarita est pulcherrimus lapidum,⁴² Quid nisi secrete leserunt Philide silve,⁴³ and Nominativo hic magister.⁴⁴ Most of these examples appear in other collections.³⁴

The fourth section analyses short sentences, along with adverbial phrases and liturgical formulas⁸ such as ite missa est⁴⁵ whose use of ellipsis presented certain problems.³⁴ It's divided into three sections on "On Some Cases in the Nominal Absolute",⁴⁶⁴⁷ "On Mediate Apposition",⁴⁸⁴⁹ and "On Some Difficulties in Speech".⁵⁰⁵¹

Bacon emphasizes that grammatical rules cannot be applied mechanistically but must be understood as a structure through which to attempt to understand the author's intent (intentio proferentis).⁸ The desire to communicate some particular idea may require breaking some of the standard rules.⁵² Such exceptions must, however, be linguistically justified.⁸ In this he follows Kilwardby.⁸ Although Bacon considered an understanding of logic to be important for clarity in philosophical and theological texts, he found his era's Modist analyses needed to be tempered by a contextual understanding of the linguistic ambiguity inevitable in the imposition of signs and from the shifts of meaning and emphasis over time.⁸

Bacon argues for a universal grammar underlying all human languages.² As more tersely stated in his later Greek Grammar:²

Grammar is one and the same in all languages, substantially, though it may vary, accidentally, in each of them.^{55n 4}

Hovdhaugen leaves open the possibility, however, that, unlike the Modists who followed Bacon, his own statements on the subject did not refer to a universal grammar but to a universal science to be employed in studying linguistics across languages.⁵⁶ This derives from an ambiguity in the Latin grammatica, which referred variously to the structure of language, to its description, and to the science underlying such descriptions.⁵⁶