| Title | Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
| Pages | 231-262 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo , Rashed, Marwan , Sedley, David N. |
| Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
| Translator(s) |
| The celebrated Archimedes Palimpsest has turned out to include not only seminal works of Archimedes but also two speeches by Hyperides and—identified as recently as 2005—fourteen pages of an otherwise unknown commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, in a copy written around 900 CE. Even if it contained nothing else, the citations that this last manuscript preserves from named earlier commentators—Andronicus, Boethus, Nicostratus, and Herminus—would be enough to make it an important addition to our knowledge of the Categories tradition. Its new evidence on the first-century BCE Aristotelian Boethus is especially significant. Two of the three citations from him (3,19–22; 14,4–12) probably embody his words more or less verbatim, to judge from the combination of direct speech and peculiarly crabbed language, very unlike the author’s usual style. In addition, the author mentions a group of anonymous commentators already criticized by Boethus, thus giving further unexpected insights into the early reception of Aristotle’s work. But the author’s own contributions are rich and fascinating too. If his date and identity could be established, the new text would make an even greater impact on our present state of understanding. In this article, it will be argued that the new fragment is, to all appearances, a remnant of the most important of all the ancient Categories commentaries, Porphyry’s lost Ad Gedalium. The grounds for such an attribution will be set out in this introduction. There will then follow a translation of the passage, and finally a commentary on the commentary. Our aim is not, in the space of a single article, to settle all the interpretative questions but, on the contrary, to initiate discussion, to develop our proposal regarding authorship, and, above all, to bring the already published text to the attention of interested scholars in the field of ancient philosophy. The commentary consists of seven consecutive folios, recto and verso, each with thirty lines per side and around forty letters per line. For ease of reference, we have renumbered the sides into a simple consecutive run, 1–14. Despite its severely damaged state, it has proved possible to decipher much of the greater part of the text on these fourteen pages. In what follows, we start with a brief description, then turn to the question of authorship. The entire fourteen pages deal, incompletely, with just two consecutive lemmata from the Categories. The passage already under discussion when the text opens is 1a20-b15, a strikingly long lemma, especially given that the same passage is divided into three lemmata by Ammonius and into five by Simplicius. The commentator has by this point already dealt, presumably at some length, with Aristotle’s well-known distinction there between properties that are ‘said of a subject’ and those that are ‘in a subject.’ As the text opens, he is discussing the later part of the lemma, 1b10–15, where Aristotle explains a principle of transitivity according to which when predicate B is said of subject A, and predicate C is said of subject B, then predicate C is said of subject A. Various aspects of this theorem, and problems arising from it, occupy the commentator from 1,1 to 7,8. But he then returns (7,8–9,30) to the opening part of the main lemma, its fourfold division of predicates (1a20-b9), which he presents as applying a neglected Aristotelian method of division, one that can also, as he proceeds to illustrate, be used effectively in the doxographical mapping out of philosophical theories. At 9,30–10,12, we encounter the transition to a new lemma, Categories 1b16–24, where Aristotle explains his thesis that any two different genera, such as animal and knowledge, which are not subordinated one to the other, will normally be divided by two specifically (tôi eidei) different sets of differentiae. The commentator takes the opportunity here to explain the basic vocabulary of genus, species, and differentia, as befits the opening pages of a work that was itself placed first in the Aristotelian corpus. Otherwise, his discussion, as for the preceding lemma, is largely taken up with the resolution of the exegetical problems raised by his predecessors. The Categories was the earliest Aristotelian treatise to attract commentaries and critiques from the first century BCE onwards. The numerous exegetes, of whose work only a small proportion has survived, included not only Aristotelians but also Platonists, Stoics, and others of uncertain philosophical allegiance. The surviving commentaries are in fact all the work of Neoplatonists, starting with the short question-and-answer commentary by Porphyry (third century CE), but they contain plentiful reports of the views of earlier commentators and critics. Since our commentary repeatedly cites previous commentators from the first century BCE to the second century CE but none later than that, we can be confident that it was written in the Roman imperial era, not earlier than the time of Alexander of Aphrodisias (c. 200), whose teacher Herminus is the latest commentator cited, and probably not very much later either. This enables us to set about searching for its author’s identity systematically, since we are fortunate, in the case of this particular Aristotelian treatise, to have from Simplicius (in Cat. 1,9–2,29 Kalbfleisch) a detailed survey of the commentary tradition down to the beginning of the sixth century. [introduction p. 231-233] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/boTHRcfBsw3NuBU |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1535","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1535,"authors_free":[{"id":2675,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2676,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2677,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":298,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sedley, David N.","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":298,"first_name":"David N.","last_name":"Sedley","full_name":"Sedley, David N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12143141X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2678,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus","main_title":{"title":"Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus"},"abstract":"The celebrated Archimedes Palimpsest has turned out to include not only seminal works of Archimedes but also two speeches by Hyperides and\u2014identified as recently as 2005\u2014fourteen pages of an otherwise unknown commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, in a copy written around 900 CE.\r\n\r\nEven if it contained nothing else, the citations that this last manuscript preserves from named earlier commentators\u2014Andronicus, Boethus, Nicostratus, and Herminus\u2014would be enough to make it an important addition to our knowledge of the Categories tradition. Its new evidence on the first-century BCE Aristotelian Boethus is especially significant. Two of the three citations from him (3,19\u201322; 14,4\u201312) probably embody his words more or less verbatim, to judge from the combination of direct speech and peculiarly crabbed language, very unlike the author\u2019s usual style. In addition, the author mentions a group of anonymous commentators already criticized by Boethus, thus giving further unexpected insights into the early reception of Aristotle\u2019s work.\r\n\r\nBut the author\u2019s own contributions are rich and fascinating too. If his date and identity could be established, the new text would make an even greater impact on our present state of understanding. In this article, it will be argued that the new fragment is, to all appearances, a remnant of the most important of all the ancient Categories commentaries, Porphyry\u2019s lost Ad Gedalium.\r\n\r\nThe grounds for such an attribution will be set out in this introduction. There will then follow a translation of the passage, and finally a commentary on the commentary. Our aim is not, in the space of a single article, to settle all the interpretative questions but, on the contrary, to initiate discussion, to develop our proposal regarding authorship, and, above all, to bring the already published text to the attention of interested scholars in the field of ancient philosophy.\r\n\r\nThe commentary consists of seven consecutive folios, recto and verso, each with thirty lines per side and around forty letters per line. For ease of reference, we have renumbered the sides into a simple consecutive run, 1\u201314.\r\n\r\nDespite its severely damaged state, it has proved possible to decipher much of the greater part of the text on these fourteen pages. In what follows, we start with a brief description, then turn to the question of authorship.\r\n\r\nThe entire fourteen pages deal, incompletely, with just two consecutive lemmata from the Categories. The passage already under discussion when the text opens is 1a20-b15, a strikingly long lemma, especially given that the same passage is divided into three lemmata by Ammonius and into five by Simplicius. The commentator has by this point already dealt, presumably at some length, with Aristotle\u2019s well-known distinction there between properties that are \u2018said of a subject\u2019 and those that are \u2018in a subject.\u2019 As the text opens, he is discussing the later part of the lemma, 1b10\u201315, where Aristotle explains a principle of transitivity according to which when predicate B is said of subject A, and predicate C is said of subject B, then predicate C is said of subject A. Various aspects of this theorem, and problems arising from it, occupy the commentator from 1,1 to 7,8. But he then returns (7,8\u20139,30) to the opening part of the main lemma, its fourfold division of predicates (1a20-b9), which he presents as applying a neglected Aristotelian method of division, one that can also, as he proceeds to illustrate, be used effectively in the doxographical mapping out of philosophical theories.\r\n\r\nAt 9,30\u201310,12, we encounter the transition to a new lemma, Categories 1b16\u201324, where Aristotle explains his thesis that any two different genera, such as animal and knowledge, which are not subordinated one to the other, will normally be divided by two specifically (t\u00f4i eidei) different sets of differentiae. The commentator takes the opportunity here to explain the basic vocabulary of genus, species, and differentia, as befits the opening pages of a work that was itself placed first in the Aristotelian corpus. Otherwise, his discussion, as for the preceding lemma, is largely taken up with the resolution of the exegetical problems raised by his predecessors.\r\n\r\nThe Categories was the earliest Aristotelian treatise to attract commentaries and critiques from the first century BCE onwards. The numerous exegetes, of whose work only a small proportion has survived, included not only Aristotelians but also Platonists, Stoics, and others of uncertain philosophical allegiance. The surviving commentaries are in fact all the work of Neoplatonists, starting with the short question-and-answer commentary by Porphyry (third century CE), but they contain plentiful reports of the views of earlier commentators and critics.\r\n\r\nSince our commentary repeatedly cites previous commentators from the first century BCE to the second century CE but none later than that, we can be confident that it was written in the Roman imperial era, not earlier than the time of Alexander of Aphrodisias (c. 200), whose teacher Herminus is the latest commentator cited, and probably not very much later either. This enables us to set about searching for its author\u2019s identity systematically, since we are fortunate, in the case of this particular Aristotelian treatise, to have from Simplicius (in Cat. 1,9\u20132,29 Kalbfleisch) a detailed survey of the commentary tradition down to the beginning of the sixth century.\r\n[introduction p. 231-233]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/boTHRcfBsw3NuBU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":298,"full_name":"Sedley, David N.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1535,"section_of":1419,"pages":"231-262","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
| Title | Boethus’ Aristotelian Ontology |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
| Pages | 103-124 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
| Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
| Translator(s) |
| Boethus is surely one of the most important thinkers of the first century BCE. Though only a few testimonies, and no clear fragment, remain, their number and content are sufficient to show how insightful he was in commenting upon Aristotle. It is not just that he was typical of this first generation of commentators who have struck modern historians by their free spirit towards Aristotle’s text. Boethus’ fragments on substance testify to more than a free attitude towards the Philosopher: it is also possible to recognize, through the many layers of the tradition—Alexander, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Simplicius—a coherent and unitary doctrine. His doctrine, of course, is not un-Aristotelian; it does not even stand somewhere halfway between Aristotle and other thinkers of Antiquity, the Stoics in particular (even if it is obviously inspired by a general Stoic atmosphere). Boethus has consciously built, out of some rare Aristotelian indications, a certain kind of Aristotelianism among other possible ones. This doctrinal approach is probably both the cause and the effect of a cultural fact: the Peripatos’ nearly exclusive focus, in the first century BCE, on the Categories. For sure, the treatise of the Categories, by itself, does not necessarily produce a definite account of the world. But by contrast with what is the case with other parts of the Aristotelian corpus, its basic ontological features seem naturally at home in the framework of a doctrine holding the primacy of the individual material substance. [introduction p. 103-104] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xYH889DSksf6EXe |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1536","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1536,"authors_free":[{"id":2679,"entry_id":1536,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2680,"entry_id":1536,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Boethus\u2019 Aristotelian Ontology","main_title":{"title":"Boethus\u2019 Aristotelian Ontology"},"abstract":"Boethus is surely one of the most important thinkers of the first century BCE. Though only a few testimonies, and no clear fragment, remain, their number and content are sufficient to show how insightful he was in commenting upon Aristotle. It is not just that he was typical of this first generation of commentators who have struck modern historians by their free spirit towards Aristotle\u2019s text. Boethus\u2019 fragments on substance testify to more than a free attitude towards the Philosopher: it is also possible to recognize, through the many layers of the tradition\u2014Alexander, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Simplicius\u2014a coherent and unitary doctrine.\r\n\r\nHis doctrine, of course, is not un-Aristotelian; it does not even stand somewhere halfway between Aristotle and other thinkers of Antiquity, the Stoics in particular (even if it is obviously inspired by a general Stoic atmosphere). Boethus has consciously built, out of some rare Aristotelian indications, a certain kind of Aristotelianism among other possible ones. This doctrinal approach is probably both the cause and the effect of a cultural fact: the Peripatos\u2019 nearly exclusive focus, in the first century BCE, on the Categories.\r\n\r\nFor sure, the treatise of the Categories, by itself, does not necessarily produce a definite account of the world. But by contrast with what is the case with other parts of the Aristotelian corpus, its basic ontological features seem naturally at home in the framework of a doctrine holding the primacy of the individual material substance.\r\n[introduction p. 103-104]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xYH889DSksf6EXe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1536,"section_of":1419,"pages":"103-124","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
| Title | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Der Parisinus graecus 1853, Die Handschrift E - kulturgeschichtlich |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2001 |
| Published in | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione |
| Pages | 43-53 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Es ist nicht bekannt, welche Rolle E während der Renaissance gespielt hat, wenn überhaupt. Für die Zeit vor dem 16. Jahrhundert, d. h. vor dem Zeitpunkt der Eingliederung in Ridolfis Bibliothek, bietet P. Moraux keinen Hinweis. Doch gibt es, auch wenn die spätere Geschichte des Paris. sehr rätselhaft ist, gute Gründe anzunehmen, dass sich E schon am Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts in Florenz befand. A. Diller hat entdeckt, dass die unter der Nummer 81 in dem um 1510 kopierten Katalog des Fabio Vigili "Mediceae domus insignis Bibliotheca quae nunc est apud R.mum Card. de Medicis. Graeca bibliotheca" (Barber. lat. 3185, fol. 1–76) beschriebene Handschrift nur E sein konnte. Es liegt demnach die Vermutung nahe, dass E schon zu Lebzeiten Lorenzos zur Librería Privata gehörte: "It [Hs. E] was probably in the Bibliotheca Medicea privata in the time of Lorenzo (d. 1492)." Leider wissen wir nicht, unter welchen Umständen die Medici in den Besitz der wichtigen Handschrift gelangt sind. Möglicherweise hat Janos Laskaris den Kodex im Osten entdeckt und ihn nach Florenz mitgebracht. Die spätere Geschichte ist gut bekannt und von Moraux in allen Einzelheiten beschrieben. [conclusion p. 53] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/v6hwr0DWpDDC3mu |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1198","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1198,"authors_free":[{"id":1768,"entry_id":1198,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Der Parisinus graecus 1853, Die Handschrift E - kulturgeschichtlich","main_title":{"title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Der Parisinus graecus 1853, Die Handschrift E - kulturgeschichtlich"},"abstract":"Es ist nicht bekannt, welche Rolle E w\u00e4hrend der Renaissance gespielt hat, wenn \u00fcberhaupt. F\u00fcr die Zeit vor dem 16. Jahrhundert, d. h. vor dem Zeitpunkt der Eingliederung in Ridolfis Bibliothek, bietet P. Moraux keinen Hinweis.\r\n\r\nDoch gibt es, auch wenn die sp\u00e4tere Geschichte des Paris. sehr r\u00e4tselhaft ist, gute Gr\u00fcnde anzunehmen, dass sich E schon am Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts in Florenz befand. A. Diller hat entdeckt, dass die unter der Nummer 81 in dem um 1510 kopierten Katalog des Fabio Vigili \"Mediceae domus insignis Bibliotheca quae nunc est apud R.mum Card. de Medicis. Graeca bibliotheca\" (Barber. lat. 3185, fol. 1\u201376) beschriebene Handschrift nur E sein konnte.\r\n\r\nEs liegt demnach die Vermutung nahe, dass E schon zu Lebzeiten Lorenzos zur Librer\u00eda Privata geh\u00f6rte: \"It [Hs. E] was probably in the Bibliotheca Medicea privata in the time of Lorenzo (d. 1492).\" Leider wissen wir nicht, unter welchen Umst\u00e4nden die Medici in den Besitz der wichtigen Handschrift gelangt sind. M\u00f6glicherweise hat Janos Laskaris den Kodex im Osten entdeckt und ihn nach Florenz mitgebracht.\r\n\r\nDie sp\u00e4tere Geschichte ist gut bekannt und von Moraux in allen Einzelheiten beschrieben. [conclusion p. 53]","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/v6hwr0DWpDDC3mu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1198,"section_of":10,"pages":"43-53","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":10,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rashed2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2001","abstract":"In seiner Schrift \u201eDe generatione et corruptione\u201c entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch \u2013 und dies im angels\u00e4chsischen Sinne des Wortes \u2013 das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes \u201egenesthai\u201c zu kl\u00e4ren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einf\u00fchrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.\r\nDie philosophische \u00dcberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und \u2013 unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen \u2013 um das Verh\u00e4ltnis Gottes zu seinen Gesch\u00f6pfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die gro\u00dfe Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und sp\u00e4ter auf die Physiker-\u00c4rzte S\u00fcditaliens ausge\u00fcbt hat. Und man denke schlie\u00dflich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache \u00fcberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausge\u00fcbt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form m\u00fcnden kann.\r\nAuch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdr\u00fccklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der gr\u00f6\u00dften islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gef\u00fchrt.\r\nDer Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen \u00dcbersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zur\u00fcckgeht, dass die s\u00fcditalienischen \u00c4rzte es nicht vers\u00e4umt haben, sich unverz\u00fcglich die vielf\u00e4ltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version \u00fcbersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, \u2013 dass \u00fcbrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit S\u00fcditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden k\u00f6nnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten \u2013, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.\r\nDer Autor liefert mit seiner \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das f\u00fcr eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerl\u00e4\u00dfliche Stemma. Er f\u00fchrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befa\u00dft. Nur die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author\u2019s abstract] ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":10,"pubplace":"Wiesbaden","publisher":"Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag","series":"Serta Graeca. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte","volume":"12","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2001]}
| Title | §2. Die problematischen Stellen & § 3. Die Scholien des Abrinc. 232 (Ay) |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2001 |
| Published in | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione |
| Pages | 141-159 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IMgXHC5ttxKH54j |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1199","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1199,"authors_free":[{"id":1770,"entry_id":1199,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u00a72. Die problematischen Stellen & \u00a7 3. Die Scholien des Abrinc. 232 (Ay)","main_title":{"title":"\u00a72. Die problematischen Stellen & \u00a7 3. Die Scholien des Abrinc. 232 (Ay)"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IMgXHC5ttxKH54j","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1199,"section_of":10,"pages":"141-159","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":10,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rashed2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2001","abstract":"In seiner Schrift \u201eDe generatione et corruptione\u201c entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch \u2013 und dies im angels\u00e4chsischen Sinne des Wortes \u2013 das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes \u201egenesthai\u201c zu kl\u00e4ren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einf\u00fchrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.\r\nDie philosophische \u00dcberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und \u2013 unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen \u2013 um das Verh\u00e4ltnis Gottes zu seinen Gesch\u00f6pfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die gro\u00dfe Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und sp\u00e4ter auf die Physiker-\u00c4rzte S\u00fcditaliens ausge\u00fcbt hat. Und man denke schlie\u00dflich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache \u00fcberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausge\u00fcbt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form m\u00fcnden kann.\r\nAuch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdr\u00fccklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der gr\u00f6\u00dften islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gef\u00fchrt.\r\nDer Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen \u00dcbersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zur\u00fcckgeht, dass die s\u00fcditalienischen \u00c4rzte es nicht vers\u00e4umt haben, sich unverz\u00fcglich die vielf\u00e4ltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version \u00fcbersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, \u2013 dass \u00fcbrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit S\u00fcditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden k\u00f6nnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten \u2013, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.\r\nDer Autor liefert mit seiner \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das f\u00fcr eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerl\u00e4\u00dfliche Stemma. Er f\u00fchrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befa\u00dft. Nur die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author\u2019s abstract] ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":10,"pubplace":"Wiesbaden","publisher":"Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag","series":"Serta Graeca. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte","volume":"12","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2001]}
| Title | κ und Nikephoros Chumnos |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2001 |
| Published in | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione |
| Pages | 182-189 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VUDuUkAYPBFA3Bq |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1200","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1200,"authors_free":[{"id":1772,"entry_id":1200,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u03ba und Nikephoros Chumnos","main_title":{"title":"\u03ba und Nikephoros Chumnos"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VUDuUkAYPBFA3Bq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1200,"section_of":10,"pages":"182-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":10,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rashed2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2001","abstract":"In seiner Schrift \u201eDe generatione et corruptione\u201c entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch \u2013 und dies im angels\u00e4chsischen Sinne des Wortes \u2013 das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes \u201egenesthai\u201c zu kl\u00e4ren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einf\u00fchrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.\r\nDie philosophische \u00dcberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und \u2013 unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen \u2013 um das Verh\u00e4ltnis Gottes zu seinen Gesch\u00f6pfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die gro\u00dfe Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und sp\u00e4ter auf die Physiker-\u00c4rzte S\u00fcditaliens ausge\u00fcbt hat. Und man denke schlie\u00dflich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache \u00fcberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausge\u00fcbt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form m\u00fcnden kann.\r\nAuch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdr\u00fccklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der gr\u00f6\u00dften islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gef\u00fchrt.\r\nDer Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen \u00dcbersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zur\u00fcckgeht, dass die s\u00fcditalienischen \u00c4rzte es nicht vers\u00e4umt haben, sich unverz\u00fcglich die vielf\u00e4ltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version \u00fcbersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, \u2013 dass \u00fcbrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit S\u00fcditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden k\u00f6nnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten \u2013, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.\r\nDer Autor liefert mit seiner \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das f\u00fcr eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerl\u00e4\u00dfliche Stemma. Er f\u00fchrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befa\u00dft. Nur die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author\u2019s abstract] ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":10,"pubplace":"Wiesbaden","publisher":"Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag","series":"Serta Graeca. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte","volume":"12","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2001]}
| Title | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Zur Neukonstituierung des Textes |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2001 |
| Published in | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione |
| Pages | 315-350 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Die Editoren unseres Traktats hatten schon seit I. Bekker wichtige Textträger der zwei oben behandelten Familien herangezogen. Obgleich eine genaue Untersuchung gezeigt hat, dass auch innerhalb der beiden Hauptfamilien das Spektrum der im Rahmen einer neuen Ausgabe von GC zu berücksichtigenden Handschriften erheblich erweitert werden konnte (und musste), handelte es sich doch immer nur um eine Verfeinerung unseres Verständnisses der stemmatischen Beziehungen zwischen den Hauptträgern der zwei weniger kontaminierten Familien a und b1. Einige Aspekte der indirekten Überlieferung sind schon im Laufe der vorliegenden Arbeit besprochen worden. Trotz all ihrer Wichtigkeit hängt die syrisch-arabische Übersetzung, die zurzeit nur durch ihre lateinische und hebräische Übertragung bekannt ist, durchaus vom Hyparchetypen ab. Selbst wenn sie im Rahmen der Textkonstituierung der Familie a unterscheidungskräftig ist, bietet sie uns also keine besonderen Anhaltspunkte für die Bewertung der Beziehungen der beiden Hauptfamilien zueinander. Noch weniger ergiebig haben sich diesbezüglich die mittelalterlichen griechisch-lateinischen Versionen gezeigt: Sie gehen auf zwei griechische Vorlagen zurück, die noch heutzutage erhalten sind, nämlich den Laur. 87.7 (Burgundio von Pisa) und den Vinä. phil. 100 (Wilhelm von Moerbeke). [introduction p. 315] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zd7dO3tU8BFLAvd |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1382","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1382,"authors_free":[{"id":2131,"entry_id":1382,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Zur Neukonstituierung des Textes","main_title":{"title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Zur Neukonstituierung des Textes"},"abstract":"Die Editoren unseres Traktats hatten schon seit I. Bekker wichtige Texttr\u00e4ger der zwei oben behandelten Familien herangezogen. Obgleich eine genaue Untersuchung gezeigt hat, dass auch innerhalb der beiden Hauptfamilien das Spektrum der im Rahmen einer neuen Ausgabe von GC zu ber\u00fccksichtigenden Handschriften erheblich erweitert werden konnte (und musste), handelte es sich doch immer nur um eine Verfeinerung unseres Verst\u00e4ndnisses der stemmatischen Beziehungen zwischen den Haupttr\u00e4gern der zwei weniger kontaminierten Familien a und b1.\r\n\r\nEinige Aspekte der indirekten \u00dcberlieferung sind schon im Laufe der vorliegenden Arbeit besprochen worden. Trotz all ihrer Wichtigkeit h\u00e4ngt die syrisch-arabische \u00dcbersetzung, die zurzeit nur durch ihre lateinische und hebr\u00e4ische \u00dcbertragung bekannt ist, durchaus vom Hyparchetypen ab. Selbst wenn sie im Rahmen der Textkonstituierung der Familie a unterscheidungskr\u00e4ftig ist, bietet sie uns also keine besonderen Anhaltspunkte f\u00fcr die Bewertung der Beziehungen der beiden Hauptfamilien zueinander.\r\n\r\nNoch weniger ergiebig haben sich diesbez\u00fcglich die mittelalterlichen griechisch-lateinischen Versionen gezeigt: Sie gehen auf zwei griechische Vorlagen zur\u00fcck, die noch heutzutage erhalten sind, n\u00e4mlich den Laur. 87.7 (Burgundio von Pisa) und den Vin\u00e4. phil. 100 (Wilhelm von Moerbeke). [introduction p. 315]","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zd7dO3tU8BFLAvd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1382,"section_of":10,"pages":"315-350","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":10,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rashed2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2001","abstract":"In seiner Schrift \u201eDe generatione et corruptione\u201c entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch \u2013 und dies im angels\u00e4chsischen Sinne des Wortes \u2013 das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes \u201egenesthai\u201c zu kl\u00e4ren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einf\u00fchrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.\r\nDie philosophische \u00dcberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und \u2013 unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen \u2013 um das Verh\u00e4ltnis Gottes zu seinen Gesch\u00f6pfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die gro\u00dfe Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und sp\u00e4ter auf die Physiker-\u00c4rzte S\u00fcditaliens ausge\u00fcbt hat. Und man denke schlie\u00dflich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache \u00fcberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausge\u00fcbt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form m\u00fcnden kann.\r\nAuch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdr\u00fccklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der gr\u00f6\u00dften islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gef\u00fchrt.\r\nDer Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen \u00dcbersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zur\u00fcckgeht, dass die s\u00fcditalienischen \u00c4rzte es nicht vers\u00e4umt haben, sich unverz\u00fcglich die vielf\u00e4ltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version \u00fcbersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, \u2013 dass \u00fcbrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit S\u00fcditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden k\u00f6nnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten \u2013, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.\r\nDer Autor liefert mit seiner \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das f\u00fcr eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerl\u00e4\u00dfliche Stemma. Er f\u00fchrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befa\u00dft. Nur die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author\u2019s abstract] ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":10,"pubplace":"Wiesbaden","publisher":"Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag","series":"Serta Graeca. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte","volume":"12","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2001]}
| Title | Les analyses de l'énoncé: catégories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs néoplatoniciens |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1999 |
| Published in | Théories de la phrase et de la proposition, de Platon à Averroès |
| Pages | 209-248 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
| Editor(s) | Diebler, Stéphane , Rashed, Marwan , Büttgen, Philippe |
| Translator(s) |
| Avec les exégètes néoplatoniciens d’Aristote, à la fin de l'Antiquité, l'intérêt constant porté au discours par les philosophes grecs – depuis les sophistes, Platon, Aristote, les stoïciens – trouve son point d’achèvement, tandis que s’affirme nettement la différence des deux points de vue – grammatical et logique – que l’on peut porter sur l’énoncé. Cet effort de distinction caractérise la littérature des commentaires sur l’Organon, qui correspond, on le sait, au début du cours de philosophie néoplatonicienne dans l’Antiquité tardive. L’étude de l’Organon commençait, après des enseignements propédeutiques et une lecture de l’Isagoge de Porphyre, par l’exégèse du traité des Catégories, que domine une description fine du "but", du skopos. Les catégories sont les éléments constitutifs de l’énoncé déclaratif (logos apophantikós), seule espèce du logos à être vraie ou fausse, et qui est lui-même la base du syllogisme démonstratif, lequel est le point culminant ou la clé de voûte de la logique, puisque la démonstration est l’instrument de discernement du vrai et du faux dans le domaine de la théorie, et du bien et du mal dans le domaine de la pratique. Les catégories sont les termes “qui ne se disent pas en liaison”, c’est-à-dire qui ne sont pas pris dans une syntaxe attributive et qui se contentent encore de “signifier”. La doctrine des catégories est, en son fond, sémantique et ressortit à la logique. Mais elle reflète une division (diairesis) des étants en dix classes suprêmes, les “genres généralissimes”. Lorsqu’il commente le chapitre 2 des Catégories, Simplicius explique que la division en dix catégories s’inscrit elle-même dans une séquence dyade-tétrade-décade. Aristote, affirme-t-il, commence avec raison par donner une quadruple division des étants, puisque la tétrade est plus fondamentale que la décade, et que cette quadripartition se ramène elle-même à une bipartition : "[...] puisque, nous l'avons vu, le but (skopos) porte sur les mots simples et génériques, qui signifient les réalités simples et génériques, avant de les diviser (diairesis) en le plus grand nombre de termes possible – j'entends par là la division en dix catégories, au-delà desquelles on ne pouvait en trouver d’autres –, Aristote a jugé bon de commencer par une division minimale, car on ne pouvait rassembler les mots simples en un plus petit nombre de groupes : en effet cette façon de procéder était scientifique (epistêmonikón) parce que la décade est comprise dans la tétrade ; en effet en faisant la somme d’un, deux, trois et quatre, nous obtenons le nombre dix ; et la tétrade, à rebours, Aristote l’a rassemblée dans la dyade. Les quatre termes dont nous parlons sont : l’essence, l’accident, l’universel et le particulier. Les étants en effet se divisent en deux (ta onta diaireitai dikhôs) [...]". Ces deux termes sont l’essence (qui correspond à la première catégorie) et l’accident (sous le chef duquel se regroupent les neuf autres catégories). À la fin de l’explication de ce lemme, Simplicius précise que “la division en quatre termes n’est pas une division au sens propre, mais plutôt un dénombrement (anarithmêsis)”. L'analyse du logos apophantikós conduit donc le philosophe à distinguer entre dix “mots simples”, les dix catégories énumérées par Aristote, et qui constituent, aux yeux des exégètes antiques, une liste exhaustive en droit et close : la substance ou l’essence (ousia, ti esti), la quantité (poson), la qualité (poion), la relation (pros ti), l’agir et le pâtir (poiein, paschein), le "quand” et le “où” (pote, pou), la situation et l’avoir (keisthai, echein). Cette analyse ne coïncide en rien avec celle des grammairiens qui, à la fin de l'Antiquité, enseignent de manière fixe la doctrine des huit “parties du discours” (merê tou logou), progressivement élaborée comme le fruit de ce qu’ils nomment le merismos (“partition”). Ces huit “parties du discours” sont, dans l'ordre : le nom, le verbe, le participe, l’article, le pronom, la préposition, l'adverbe et la conjonction. Soucieux, pour plusieurs raisons, de distinguer leur recherche de l’activité grammaticale, les commentateurs néoplatoniciens d’Aristote ont soigneusement distingué entre ces deux modes d'analyse du logos (discours, phrase, proposition, énoncé) : la division des catégories, qui est fondée sur la diairesis des étants en dix genres – elle relève de la logique et participe de l’ontologie – et la merismos grammaticale des éléments du langage en huit classes (les huit “parties du discours”). La lecture des Catégories conduisait ces exégètes à rencontrer certaines difficultés. Tout d'abord, il y avait un débat sur la nature même des "catégories" (sont-elles des mots ? des notions ? des réalités ?). Des adversaires stoïciens d’Aristote (Athénodore et Cornutus) contestaient la complétude de la liste, insuffisante selon eux, puisqu’ils voyaient en elle le résultat d’une division des mots. Le débat sur l’origine grammaticale des catégories, ou sur le lien de cette doctrine avec l’objet propre et la discipline de la grammaire, illustré à l’époque moderne par les travaux d’auteurs aussi différents que Trendelenburg ou E. Benveniste, était déjà un débat antique. Autre question. Le début du De interpretatione présente un exposé sur le nom (onoma) et le verbe (rhêma), qui sont à la fois des termes logiques (sujet et prédicat) et les deux premières “parties du discours” selon la liste canonique des grammairiens. Comment rendre compte de la rencontre, mais aussi de la différence, entre le point de vue du philosophe lecteur de l’Organon et le point de vue du grammairien ? Comment expliquer la succession – dans la perspective de l’“ordre de lecture” néoplatonicien – des Catégories et du De interpretatione ? La tâche de tout commentateur néoplatonicien était donc d'expliquer à la fois comment distinguer entre l’analyse grammaticale d'une phrase et l’analyse logique d’un énoncé véridique, et quelle est l’articulation de la doctrine des Catégories et de la doctrine du De interpretatione. Il faut pour cela rappeler quels étaient les “buts” assignés par les exégètes à ces deux traités, qui étaient lus l’un à la suite de l’autre dans “l’ordre de lecture” des œuvres d’Aristote tel qu’il était pratiqué à la fin de l’Antiquité. [introduction p. 209-212] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/bzuFZeua3rVa1TS |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"680","_score":null,"_source":{"id":680,"authors_free":[{"id":1005,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1006,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":192,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Diebler, St\u00e9phane","free_first_name":"St\u00e9phane","free_last_name":"Diebler","norm_person":{"id":192,"first_name":"St\u00e9phane ","last_name":" Diebler","full_name":"Diebler, St\u00e9phane","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135973635","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1007,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1008,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":193,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"B\u00fcttgen, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"B\u00fcttgen","norm_person":{"id":193,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":" B\u00fcttgen","full_name":"B\u00fcttgen, Philippe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1071071025","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les analyses de l'\u00e9nonc\u00e9: cat\u00e9gories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens","main_title":{"title":"Les analyses de l'\u00e9nonc\u00e9: cat\u00e9gories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens"},"abstract":"Avec les ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes n\u00e9oplatoniciens d\u2019Aristote, \u00e0 la fin de l'Antiquit\u00e9, l'int\u00e9r\u00eat constant port\u00e9 au discours par les philosophes grecs \u2013 depuis les sophistes, Platon, Aristote, les sto\u00efciens \u2013 trouve son point d\u2019ach\u00e8vement, tandis que s\u2019affirme nettement la diff\u00e9rence des deux points de vue \u2013 grammatical et logique \u2013 que l\u2019on peut porter sur l\u2019\u00e9nonc\u00e9. Cet effort de distinction caract\u00e9rise la litt\u00e9rature des commentaires sur l\u2019Organon, qui correspond, on le sait, au d\u00e9but du cours de philosophie n\u00e9oplatonicienne dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive.\r\n\r\nL\u2019\u00e9tude de l\u2019Organon commen\u00e7ait, apr\u00e8s des enseignements prop\u00e9deutiques et une lecture de l\u2019Isagoge de Porphyre, par l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se du trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories, que domine une description fine du \"but\", du skopos. Les cat\u00e9gories sont les \u00e9l\u00e9ments constitutifs de l\u2019\u00e9nonc\u00e9 d\u00e9claratif (logos apophantik\u00f3s), seule esp\u00e8ce du logos \u00e0 \u00eatre vraie ou fausse, et qui est lui-m\u00eame la base du syllogisme d\u00e9monstratif, lequel est le point culminant ou la cl\u00e9 de vo\u00fbte de la logique, puisque la d\u00e9monstration est l\u2019instrument de discernement du vrai et du faux dans le domaine de la th\u00e9orie, et du bien et du mal dans le domaine de la pratique. Les cat\u00e9gories sont les termes \u201cqui ne se disent pas en liaison\u201d, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire qui ne sont pas pris dans une syntaxe attributive et qui se contentent encore de \u201csignifier\u201d. La doctrine des cat\u00e9gories est, en son fond, s\u00e9mantique et ressortit \u00e0 la logique. Mais elle refl\u00e8te une division (diairesis) des \u00e9tants en dix classes supr\u00eames, les \u201cgenres g\u00e9n\u00e9ralissimes\u201d.\r\n\r\nLorsqu\u2019il commente le chapitre 2 des Cat\u00e9gories, Simplicius explique que la division en dix cat\u00e9gories s\u2019inscrit elle-m\u00eame dans une s\u00e9quence dyade-t\u00e9trade-d\u00e9cade. Aristote, affirme-t-il, commence avec raison par donner une quadruple division des \u00e9tants, puisque la t\u00e9trade est plus fondamentale que la d\u00e9cade, et que cette quadripartition se ram\u00e8ne elle-m\u00eame \u00e0 une bipartition :\r\n\r\n\"[...] puisque, nous l'avons vu, le but (skopos) porte sur les mots simples et g\u00e9n\u00e9riques, qui signifient les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s simples et g\u00e9n\u00e9riques, avant de les diviser (diairesis) en le plus grand nombre de termes possible \u2013 j'entends par l\u00e0 la division en dix cat\u00e9gories, au-del\u00e0 desquelles on ne pouvait en trouver d\u2019autres \u2013, Aristote a jug\u00e9 bon de commencer par une division minimale, car on ne pouvait rassembler les mots simples en un plus petit nombre de groupes : en effet cette fa\u00e7on de proc\u00e9der \u00e9tait scientifique (epist\u00eamonik\u00f3n) parce que la d\u00e9cade est comprise dans la t\u00e9trade ; en effet en faisant la somme d\u2019un, deux, trois et quatre, nous obtenons le nombre dix ; et la t\u00e9trade, \u00e0 rebours, Aristote l\u2019a rassembl\u00e9e dans la dyade. Les quatre termes dont nous parlons sont : l\u2019essence, l\u2019accident, l\u2019universel et le particulier. Les \u00e9tants en effet se divisent en deux (ta onta diaireitai dikh\u00f4s) [...]\".\r\n\r\nCes deux termes sont l\u2019essence (qui correspond \u00e0 la premi\u00e8re cat\u00e9gorie) et l\u2019accident (sous le chef duquel se regroupent les neuf autres cat\u00e9gories). \u00c0 la fin de l\u2019explication de ce lemme, Simplicius pr\u00e9cise que \u201cla division en quatre termes n\u2019est pas une division au sens propre, mais plut\u00f4t un d\u00e9nombrement (anarithm\u00easis)\u201d.\r\n\r\nL'analyse du logos apophantik\u00f3s conduit donc le philosophe \u00e0 distinguer entre dix \u201cmots simples\u201d, les dix cat\u00e9gories \u00e9num\u00e9r\u00e9es par Aristote, et qui constituent, aux yeux des ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes antiques, une liste exhaustive en droit et close : la substance ou l\u2019essence (ousia, ti esti), la quantit\u00e9 (poson), la qualit\u00e9 (poion), la relation (pros ti), l\u2019agir et le p\u00e2tir (poiein, paschein), le \"quand\u201d et le \u201co\u00f9\u201d (pote, pou), la situation et l\u2019avoir (keisthai, echein).\r\n\r\nCette analyse ne co\u00efncide en rien avec celle des grammairiens qui, \u00e0 la fin de l'Antiquit\u00e9, enseignent de mani\u00e8re fixe la doctrine des huit \u201cparties du discours\u201d (mer\u00ea tou logou), progressivement \u00e9labor\u00e9e comme le fruit de ce qu\u2019ils nomment le merismos (\u201cpartition\u201d). Ces huit \u201cparties du discours\u201d sont, dans l'ordre : le nom, le verbe, le participe, l\u2019article, le pronom, la pr\u00e9position, l'adverbe et la conjonction.\r\n\r\nSoucieux, pour plusieurs raisons, de distinguer leur recherche de l\u2019activit\u00e9 grammaticale, les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens d\u2019Aristote ont soigneusement distingu\u00e9 entre ces deux modes d'analyse du logos (discours, phrase, proposition, \u00e9nonc\u00e9) : la division des cat\u00e9gories, qui est fond\u00e9e sur la diairesis des \u00e9tants en dix genres \u2013 elle rel\u00e8ve de la logique et participe de l\u2019ontologie \u2013 et la merismos grammaticale des \u00e9l\u00e9ments du langage en huit classes (les huit \u201cparties du discours\u201d).\r\n\r\nLa lecture des Cat\u00e9gories conduisait ces ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes \u00e0 rencontrer certaines difficult\u00e9s. Tout d'abord, il y avait un d\u00e9bat sur la nature m\u00eame des \"cat\u00e9gories\" (sont-elles des mots ? des notions ? des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s ?). Des adversaires sto\u00efciens d\u2019Aristote (Ath\u00e9nodore et Cornutus) contestaient la compl\u00e9tude de la liste, insuffisante selon eux, puisqu\u2019ils voyaient en elle le r\u00e9sultat d\u2019une division des mots. Le d\u00e9bat sur l\u2019origine grammaticale des cat\u00e9gories, ou sur le lien de cette doctrine avec l\u2019objet propre et la discipline de la grammaire, illustr\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque moderne par les travaux d\u2019auteurs aussi diff\u00e9rents que Trendelenburg ou E. Benveniste, \u00e9tait d\u00e9j\u00e0 un d\u00e9bat antique.\r\n\r\nAutre question. Le d\u00e9but du De interpretatione pr\u00e9sente un expos\u00e9 sur le nom (onoma) et le verbe (rh\u00eama), qui sont \u00e0 la fois des termes logiques (sujet et pr\u00e9dicat) et les deux premi\u00e8res \u201cparties du discours\u201d selon la liste canonique des grammairiens. Comment rendre compte de la rencontre, mais aussi de la diff\u00e9rence, entre le point de vue du philosophe lecteur de l\u2019Organon et le point de vue du grammairien ? Comment expliquer la succession \u2013 dans la perspective de l\u2019\u201cordre de lecture\u201d n\u00e9oplatonicien \u2013 des Cat\u00e9gories et du De interpretatione ?\r\n\r\nLa t\u00e2che de tout commentateur n\u00e9oplatonicien \u00e9tait donc d'expliquer \u00e0 la fois comment distinguer entre l\u2019analyse grammaticale d'une phrase et l\u2019analyse logique d\u2019un \u00e9nonc\u00e9 v\u00e9ridique, et quelle est l\u2019articulation de la doctrine des Cat\u00e9gories et de la doctrine du De interpretatione.\r\n\r\nIl faut pour cela rappeler quels \u00e9taient les \u201cbuts\u201d assign\u00e9s par les ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes \u00e0 ces deux trait\u00e9s, qui \u00e9taient lus l\u2019un \u00e0 la suite de l\u2019autre dans \u201cl\u2019ordre de lecture\u201d des \u0153uvres d\u2019Aristote tel qu\u2019il \u00e9tait pratiqu\u00e9 \u00e0 la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9. [introduction p. 209-212]","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/bzuFZeua3rVa1TS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":192,"full_name":"Diebler, St\u00e9phane","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":193,"full_name":"B\u00fcttgen, Philippe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":680,"section_of":363,"pages":"209-248","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":363,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Th\u00e9ories de la phrase et de la proposition, de Platon \u00e0 Averro\u00e8s","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Diebler1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"Les th\u00e9ories de la phrase et de la proposition de l'Antiquit\u00e9 au Moyen \u00c2ge n'avaient jusqu'\u00e0 pr\u00e9sent jamais fait l'objet d'une \u00e9tude d'ensemble. On trouvera dans cet ouvrage, outre de nombreux travaux substantiels sur Platon et Aristote, des contributions novatrices sur la tradition sto\u00efcienne, ainsi que sur les aristot\u00e9lismes grec, syriaque, arabe et latin. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Ui6DfE48AHsbm24","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":363,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Presses de l\u2019\u00c9cole normale sup\u00e9rieure","series":"\u00c9tudes de litt\u00e9rature ancienne","volume":"10","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1999]}
| Title | A “New” Text of Alexander on the Soul’s Motion |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1997 |
| Published in | Aristotle and after |
| Pages | 181-195 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
| Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
| Translator(s) |
| A last argument: when Alexander describes the doctrine through which Aristotle hoped to escape from Atticus’ criticisms, he writes, apropos the intellect: "and it is separated out (ekkrinetai) in the same way as it is introduced (eiskrinetai)". Thus, the only two occurrences in Alexander of the verb eiskrinesthai are deeply connected with Atticus’ theory, either directly or through Aristotle’s reply. It seems, therefore, very probable that Alexander himself was aware of the significance of this technical term, and that he mentioned it twice. To conclude, then, the historical evolution of the polemics may be summarised as follows: The ‘Aristotelian’ claim of the intellect from without. Atticus attacks the intellect from without because of its inability to move. Aristoteles of Mytilene (as reported by Alexander in C1) defends the intellect from without by claiming its ubiquity. Alexander (De intell., C2) criticises Aristoteles’ solution to Atticus’ criticisms and gives an alternative reply to Atticus by accounting for separation in terms of thought processes. Alexander (In Phys.) attacks Atticus’ vehicle-theory on the grounds that it does not resolve the question at all and alludes indirectly to his previous solution. Thus, we may conclude that the De intellectu is an authentic work of Alexander, but an earlier one than the commentary on the Physics. [conclusion p. 194-195] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/roAfpopRonK2aKn |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1061","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1061,"authors_free":[{"id":1610,"entry_id":1061,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1611,"entry_id":1061,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion","main_title":{"title":"A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion"},"abstract":"A last argument: when Alexander describes the doctrine through which Aristotle hoped to escape from Atticus\u2019 criticisms, he writes, apropos the intellect: \"and it is separated out (ekkrinetai) in the same way as it is introduced (eiskrinetai)\". Thus, the only two occurrences in Alexander of the verb eiskrinesthai are deeply connected with Atticus\u2019 theory, either directly or through Aristotle\u2019s reply. It seems, therefore, very probable that Alexander himself was aware of the significance of this technical term, and that he mentioned it twice.\r\n\r\nTo conclude, then, the historical evolution of the polemics may be summarised as follows:\r\n\r\n The \u2018Aristotelian\u2019 claim of the intellect from without.\r\n Atticus attacks the intellect from without because of its inability to move.\r\n Aristoteles of Mytilene (as reported by Alexander in C1) defends the intellect from without by claiming its ubiquity.\r\n Alexander (De intell., C2) criticises Aristoteles\u2019 solution to Atticus\u2019 criticisms and gives an alternative reply to Atticus by accounting for separation in terms of thought processes.\r\n Alexander (In Phys.) attacks Atticus\u2019 vehicle-theory on the grounds that it does not resolve the question at all and alludes indirectly to his previous solution.\r\n\r\nThus, we may conclude that the De intellectu is an authentic work of Alexander, but an earlier one than the commentary on the Physics. [conclusion p. 194-195]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/roAfpopRonK2aKn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1061,"section_of":199,"pages":"181-195","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":199,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and after","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1997a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"A selection of papers given at the Institute of Classical Studies during 1996. They cover a variety of new work on the 900 years of philosophy from Aristotle to Simplicius. There is a strong concentration on stoicism with papers by: Michael Frede ( Euphrates of Tyre ); A. A. Long ( Property ownership and community ); Brad Inwood ( 'Why do fools fallin love?' ); Susanne Bobzein ( freedom and ethics ); Richard Gaskin ( cases, predicates and the unity of the proposition ); Richard Sorabji ( stoic philosophy and psychotherapy ); Bernard Williams ( reply to Richard Sorabji ). The other papers are by: Heinrich von Staden ( Galen and the 'Second Sophistic' ); Hans B. Gottschalk ( continuity and change in Aristotelianism ); Travis Butler ( the homonymy of signification in Aristotle ); Andrea Falcon ( Aristotle's theory of division ); Sylvia Berryman (Horror Vacui in the third century BC ); M. B. Trapp ( On the Tablet of Cebes ); Marwan Rashed ( a 'new' text of Alexander on the soul's motion ). [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/x8uyail9ZCl9wfr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":199,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study","series":"BICS (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies) Supplement","volume":"68","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1997]}
| Title | A “New” Text of Alexander on the Soul’s Motion |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1997 |
| Published in | Aristotle and after |
| Pages | 181-195 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
| Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
| Translator(s) |
A last argument: when Alexander describes the doctrine through which Aristotle hoped to escape from Atticus’ criticisms, he writes, apropos the intellect: "and it is separated out (ekkrinetai) in the same way as it is introduced (eiskrinetai)". Thus, the only two occurrences in Alexander of the verb eiskrinesthai are deeply connected with Atticus’ theory, either directly or through Aristotle’s reply. It seems, therefore, very probable that Alexander himself was aware of the significance of this technical term, and that he mentioned it twice.
To conclude, then, the historical evolution of the polemics may be summarised as follows:
The ‘Aristotelian’ claim of the intellect from without.
Atticus attacks the intellect from without because of its inability to move.
Aristoteles of Mytilene (as reported by Alexander in C1) defends the intellect from without by claiming its ubiquity.
Alexander (De intell., C2) criticises Aristoteles’ solution to Atticus’ criticisms and gives an alternative reply to Atticus by accounting for separation in terms of thought processes.
Alexander (In Phys.) attacks Atticus’ vehicle-theory on the grounds that it does not resolve the question at all and alludes indirectly to his previous solution.
Thus, we may conclude that the De intellectu is an authentic work of Alexander, but an earlier one than the commentary on the Physics. [conclusion p. 194-195] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/roAfpopRonK2aKn |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1061","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1061,"authors_free":[{"id":1610,"entry_id":1061,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1611,"entry_id":1061,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion","main_title":{"title":"A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion"},"abstract":"A last argument: when Alexander describes the doctrine through which Aristotle hoped to escape from Atticus\u2019 criticisms, he writes, apropos the intellect: \"and it is separated out (ekkrinetai) in the same way as it is introduced (eiskrinetai)\". Thus, the only two occurrences in Alexander of the verb eiskrinesthai are deeply connected with Atticus\u2019 theory, either directly or through Aristotle\u2019s reply. It seems, therefore, very probable that Alexander himself was aware of the significance of this technical term, and that he mentioned it twice.\r\n\r\nTo conclude, then, the historical evolution of the polemics may be summarised as follows:\r\n\r\n The \u2018Aristotelian\u2019 claim of the intellect from without.\r\n Atticus attacks the intellect from without because of its inability to move.\r\n Aristoteles of Mytilene (as reported by Alexander in C1) defends the intellect from without by claiming its ubiquity.\r\n Alexander (De intell., C2) criticises Aristoteles\u2019 solution to Atticus\u2019 criticisms and gives an alternative reply to Atticus by accounting for separation in terms of thought processes.\r\n Alexander (In Phys.) attacks Atticus\u2019 vehicle-theory on the grounds that it does not resolve the question at all and alludes indirectly to his previous solution.\r\n\r\nThus, we may conclude that the De intellectu is an authentic work of Alexander, but an earlier one than the commentary on the Physics. [conclusion p. 194-195]","btype":2,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/roAfpopRonK2aKn","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1061,"section_of":199,"pages":"181-195","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":199,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and after","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji1997a","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1997","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1997","abstract":"A selection of papers given at the Institute of Classical Studies during 1996. They cover a variety of new work on the 900 years of philosophy from Aristotle to Simplicius. There is a strong concentration on stoicism with papers by: Michael Frede ( Euphrates of Tyre ); A. A. Long ( Property ownership and community ); Brad Inwood ( 'Why do fools fallin love?' ); Susanne Bobzein ( freedom and ethics ); Richard Gaskin ( cases, predicates and the unity of the proposition ); Richard Sorabji ( stoic philosophy and psychotherapy ); Bernard Williams ( reply to Richard Sorabji ). The other papers are by: Heinrich von Staden ( Galen and the 'Second Sophistic' ); Hans B. Gottschalk ( continuity and change in Aristotelianism ); Travis Butler ( the homonymy of signification in Aristotle ); Andrea Falcon ( Aristotle's theory of division ); Sylvia Berryman (Horror Vacui in the third century BC ); M. B. Trapp ( On the Tablet of Cebes ); Marwan Rashed ( a 'new' text of Alexander on the soul's motion ). [authors abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/x8uyail9ZCl9wfr","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":199,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study","series":"BICS (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies) Supplement","volume":"68","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["A \u201cNew\u201d Text of Alexander on the Soul\u2019s Motion"]}
| Title | Boethus’ Aristotelian Ontology |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
| Pages | 103-124 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
| Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
| Translator(s) |
Boethus is surely one of the most important thinkers of the first century BCE. Though only a few testimonies, and no clear fragment, remain, their number and content are sufficient to show how insightful he was in commenting upon Aristotle. It is not just that he was typical of this first generation of commentators who have struck modern historians by their free spirit towards Aristotle’s text. Boethus’ fragments on substance testify to more than a free attitude towards the Philosopher: it is also possible to recognize, through the many layers of the tradition—Alexander, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Simplicius—a coherent and unitary doctrine. His doctrine, of course, is not un-Aristotelian; it does not even stand somewhere halfway between Aristotle and other thinkers of Antiquity, the Stoics in particular (even if it is obviously inspired by a general Stoic atmosphere). Boethus has consciously built, out of some rare Aristotelian indications, a certain kind of Aristotelianism among other possible ones. This doctrinal approach is probably both the cause and the effect of a cultural fact: the Peripatos’ nearly exclusive focus, in the first century BCE, on the Categories. For sure, the treatise of the Categories, by itself, does not necessarily produce a definite account of the world. But by contrast with what is the case with other parts of the Aristotelian corpus, its basic ontological features seem naturally at home in the framework of a doctrine holding the primacy of the individual material substance. [introduction p. 103-104] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xYH889DSksf6EXe |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1536","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1536,"authors_free":[{"id":2679,"entry_id":1536,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2680,"entry_id":1536,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Boethus\u2019 Aristotelian Ontology","main_title":{"title":"Boethus\u2019 Aristotelian Ontology"},"abstract":"Boethus is surely one of the most important thinkers of the first century BCE. Though only a few testimonies, and no clear fragment, remain, their number and content are sufficient to show how insightful he was in commenting upon Aristotle. It is not just that he was typical of this first generation of commentators who have struck modern historians by their free spirit towards Aristotle\u2019s text. Boethus\u2019 fragments on substance testify to more than a free attitude towards the Philosopher: it is also possible to recognize, through the many layers of the tradition\u2014Alexander, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Simplicius\u2014a coherent and unitary doctrine.\r\n\r\nHis doctrine, of course, is not un-Aristotelian; it does not even stand somewhere halfway between Aristotle and other thinkers of Antiquity, the Stoics in particular (even if it is obviously inspired by a general Stoic atmosphere). Boethus has consciously built, out of some rare Aristotelian indications, a certain kind of Aristotelianism among other possible ones. This doctrinal approach is probably both the cause and the effect of a cultural fact: the Peripatos\u2019 nearly exclusive focus, in the first century BCE, on the Categories.\r\n\r\nFor sure, the treatise of the Categories, by itself, does not necessarily produce a definite account of the world. But by contrast with what is the case with other parts of the Aristotelian corpus, its basic ontological features seem naturally at home in the framework of a doctrine holding the primacy of the individual material substance.\r\n[introduction p. 103-104]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xYH889DSksf6EXe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1536,"section_of":1419,"pages":"103-124","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Boethus\u2019 Aristotelian Ontology"]}
| Title | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Der Parisinus graecus 1853, Die Handschrift E - kulturgeschichtlich |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2001 |
| Published in | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione |
| Pages | 43-53 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Es ist nicht bekannt, welche Rolle E während der Renaissance gespielt hat, wenn überhaupt. Für die Zeit vor dem 16. Jahrhundert, d. h. vor dem Zeitpunkt der Eingliederung in Ridolfis Bibliothek, bietet P. Moraux keinen Hinweis. Doch gibt es, auch wenn die spätere Geschichte des Paris. sehr rätselhaft ist, gute Gründe anzunehmen, dass sich E schon am Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts in Florenz befand. A. Diller hat entdeckt, dass die unter der Nummer 81 in dem um 1510 kopierten Katalog des Fabio Vigili "Mediceae domus insignis Bibliotheca quae nunc est apud R.mum Card. de Medicis. Graeca bibliotheca" (Barber. lat. 3185, fol. 1–76) beschriebene Handschrift nur E sein konnte. Es liegt demnach die Vermutung nahe, dass E schon zu Lebzeiten Lorenzos zur Librería Privata gehörte: "It [Hs. E] was probably in the Bibliotheca Medicea privata in the time of Lorenzo (d. 1492)." Leider wissen wir nicht, unter welchen Umständen die Medici in den Besitz der wichtigen Handschrift gelangt sind. Möglicherweise hat Janos Laskaris den Kodex im Osten entdeckt und ihn nach Florenz mitgebracht. Die spätere Geschichte ist gut bekannt und von Moraux in allen Einzelheiten beschrieben. [conclusion p. 53] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/v6hwr0DWpDDC3mu |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1198","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1198,"authors_free":[{"id":1768,"entry_id":1198,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Der Parisinus graecus 1853, Die Handschrift E - kulturgeschichtlich","main_title":{"title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Der Parisinus graecus 1853, Die Handschrift E - kulturgeschichtlich"},"abstract":"Es ist nicht bekannt, welche Rolle E w\u00e4hrend der Renaissance gespielt hat, wenn \u00fcberhaupt. F\u00fcr die Zeit vor dem 16. Jahrhundert, d. h. vor dem Zeitpunkt der Eingliederung in Ridolfis Bibliothek, bietet P. Moraux keinen Hinweis.\r\n\r\nDoch gibt es, auch wenn die sp\u00e4tere Geschichte des Paris. sehr r\u00e4tselhaft ist, gute Gr\u00fcnde anzunehmen, dass sich E schon am Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts in Florenz befand. A. Diller hat entdeckt, dass die unter der Nummer 81 in dem um 1510 kopierten Katalog des Fabio Vigili \"Mediceae domus insignis Bibliotheca quae nunc est apud R.mum Card. de Medicis. Graeca bibliotheca\" (Barber. lat. 3185, fol. 1\u201376) beschriebene Handschrift nur E sein konnte.\r\n\r\nEs liegt demnach die Vermutung nahe, dass E schon zu Lebzeiten Lorenzos zur Librer\u00eda Privata geh\u00f6rte: \"It [Hs. E] was probably in the Bibliotheca Medicea privata in the time of Lorenzo (d. 1492).\" Leider wissen wir nicht, unter welchen Umst\u00e4nden die Medici in den Besitz der wichtigen Handschrift gelangt sind. M\u00f6glicherweise hat Janos Laskaris den Kodex im Osten entdeckt und ihn nach Florenz mitgebracht.\r\n\r\nDie sp\u00e4tere Geschichte ist gut bekannt und von Moraux in allen Einzelheiten beschrieben. [conclusion p. 53]","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/v6hwr0DWpDDC3mu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1198,"section_of":10,"pages":"43-53","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":10,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rashed2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2001","abstract":"In seiner Schrift \u201eDe generatione et corruptione\u201c entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch \u2013 und dies im angels\u00e4chsischen Sinne des Wortes \u2013 das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes \u201egenesthai\u201c zu kl\u00e4ren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einf\u00fchrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.\r\nDie philosophische \u00dcberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und \u2013 unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen \u2013 um das Verh\u00e4ltnis Gottes zu seinen Gesch\u00f6pfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die gro\u00dfe Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und sp\u00e4ter auf die Physiker-\u00c4rzte S\u00fcditaliens ausge\u00fcbt hat. Und man denke schlie\u00dflich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache \u00fcberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausge\u00fcbt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form m\u00fcnden kann.\r\nAuch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdr\u00fccklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der gr\u00f6\u00dften islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gef\u00fchrt.\r\nDer Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen \u00dcbersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zur\u00fcckgeht, dass die s\u00fcditalienischen \u00c4rzte es nicht vers\u00e4umt haben, sich unverz\u00fcglich die vielf\u00e4ltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version \u00fcbersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, \u2013 dass \u00fcbrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit S\u00fcditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden k\u00f6nnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten \u2013, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.\r\nDer Autor liefert mit seiner \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das f\u00fcr eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerl\u00e4\u00dfliche Stemma. Er f\u00fchrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befa\u00dft. Nur die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author\u2019s abstract] ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":10,"pubplace":"Wiesbaden","publisher":"Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag","series":"Serta Graeca. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte","volume":"12","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Der Parisinus graecus 1853, Die Handschrift E - kulturgeschichtlich"]}
| Title | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Zur Neukonstituierung des Textes |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2001 |
| Published in | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione |
| Pages | 315-350 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Die Editoren unseres Traktats hatten schon seit I. Bekker wichtige Textträger der zwei oben behandelten Familien herangezogen. Obgleich eine genaue Untersuchung gezeigt hat, dass auch innerhalb der beiden Hauptfamilien das Spektrum der im Rahmen einer neuen Ausgabe von GC zu berücksichtigenden Handschriften erheblich erweitert werden konnte (und musste), handelte es sich doch immer nur um eine Verfeinerung unseres Verständnisses der stemmatischen Beziehungen zwischen den Hauptträgern der zwei weniger kontaminierten Familien a und b1. Einige Aspekte der indirekten Überlieferung sind schon im Laufe der vorliegenden Arbeit besprochen worden. Trotz all ihrer Wichtigkeit hängt die syrisch-arabische Übersetzung, die zurzeit nur durch ihre lateinische und hebräische Übertragung bekannt ist, durchaus vom Hyparchetypen ab. Selbst wenn sie im Rahmen der Textkonstituierung der Familie a unterscheidungskräftig ist, bietet sie uns also keine besonderen Anhaltspunkte für die Bewertung der Beziehungen der beiden Hauptfamilien zueinander. Noch weniger ergiebig haben sich diesbezüglich die mittelalterlichen griechisch-lateinischen Versionen gezeigt: Sie gehen auf zwei griechische Vorlagen zurück, die noch heutzutage erhalten sind, nämlich den Laur. 87.7 (Burgundio von Pisa) und den Vinä. phil. 100 (Wilhelm von Moerbeke). [introduction p. 315] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/zd7dO3tU8BFLAvd |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1382","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1382,"authors_free":[{"id":2131,"entry_id":1382,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Zur Neukonstituierung des Textes","main_title":{"title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Zur Neukonstituierung des Textes"},"abstract":"Die Editoren unseres Traktats hatten schon seit I. Bekker wichtige Texttr\u00e4ger der zwei oben behandelten Familien herangezogen. Obgleich eine genaue Untersuchung gezeigt hat, dass auch innerhalb der beiden Hauptfamilien das Spektrum der im Rahmen einer neuen Ausgabe von GC zu ber\u00fccksichtigenden Handschriften erheblich erweitert werden konnte (und musste), handelte es sich doch immer nur um eine Verfeinerung unseres Verst\u00e4ndnisses der stemmatischen Beziehungen zwischen den Haupttr\u00e4gern der zwei weniger kontaminierten Familien a und b1.\r\n\r\nEinige Aspekte der indirekten \u00dcberlieferung sind schon im Laufe der vorliegenden Arbeit besprochen worden. Trotz all ihrer Wichtigkeit h\u00e4ngt die syrisch-arabische \u00dcbersetzung, die zurzeit nur durch ihre lateinische und hebr\u00e4ische \u00dcbertragung bekannt ist, durchaus vom Hyparchetypen ab. Selbst wenn sie im Rahmen der Textkonstituierung der Familie a unterscheidungskr\u00e4ftig ist, bietet sie uns also keine besonderen Anhaltspunkte f\u00fcr die Bewertung der Beziehungen der beiden Hauptfamilien zueinander.\r\n\r\nNoch weniger ergiebig haben sich diesbez\u00fcglich die mittelalterlichen griechisch-lateinischen Versionen gezeigt: Sie gehen auf zwei griechische Vorlagen zur\u00fcck, die noch heutzutage erhalten sind, n\u00e4mlich den Laur. 87.7 (Burgundio von Pisa) und den Vin\u00e4. phil. 100 (Wilhelm von Moerbeke). [introduction p. 315]","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/zd7dO3tU8BFLAvd","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1382,"section_of":10,"pages":"315-350","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":10,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rashed2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2001","abstract":"In seiner Schrift \u201eDe generatione et corruptione\u201c entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch \u2013 und dies im angels\u00e4chsischen Sinne des Wortes \u2013 das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes \u201egenesthai\u201c zu kl\u00e4ren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einf\u00fchrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.\r\nDie philosophische \u00dcberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und \u2013 unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen \u2013 um das Verh\u00e4ltnis Gottes zu seinen Gesch\u00f6pfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die gro\u00dfe Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und sp\u00e4ter auf die Physiker-\u00c4rzte S\u00fcditaliens ausge\u00fcbt hat. Und man denke schlie\u00dflich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache \u00fcberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausge\u00fcbt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form m\u00fcnden kann.\r\nAuch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdr\u00fccklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der gr\u00f6\u00dften islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gef\u00fchrt.\r\nDer Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen \u00dcbersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zur\u00fcckgeht, dass die s\u00fcditalienischen \u00c4rzte es nicht vers\u00e4umt haben, sich unverz\u00fcglich die vielf\u00e4ltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version \u00fcbersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, \u2013 dass \u00fcbrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit S\u00fcditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden k\u00f6nnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten \u2013, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.\r\nDer Autor liefert mit seiner \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das f\u00fcr eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerl\u00e4\u00dfliche Stemma. Er f\u00fchrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befa\u00dft. Nur die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author\u2019s abstract] ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":10,"pubplace":"Wiesbaden","publisher":"Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag","series":"Serta Graeca. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte","volume":"12","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione: Zur Neukonstituierung des Textes"]}
| Title | Les analyses de l'énoncé: catégories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs néoplatoniciens |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1999 |
| Published in | Théories de la phrase et de la proposition, de Platon à Averroès |
| Pages | 209-248 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe |
| Editor(s) | Diebler, Stéphane , Rashed, Marwan , Büttgen, Philippe |
| Translator(s) |
Avec les exégètes néoplatoniciens d’Aristote, à la fin de l'Antiquité, l'intérêt constant porté au discours par les philosophes grecs – depuis les sophistes, Platon, Aristote, les stoïciens – trouve son point d’achèvement, tandis que s’affirme nettement la différence des deux points de vue – grammatical et logique – que l’on peut porter sur l’énoncé. Cet effort de distinction caractérise la littérature des commentaires sur l’Organon, qui correspond, on le sait, au début du cours de philosophie néoplatonicienne dans l’Antiquité tardive. L’étude de l’Organon commençait, après des enseignements propédeutiques et une lecture de l’Isagoge de Porphyre, par l’exégèse du traité des Catégories, que domine une description fine du "but", du skopos. Les catégories sont les éléments constitutifs de l’énoncé déclaratif (logos apophantikós), seule espèce du logos à être vraie ou fausse, et qui est lui-même la base du syllogisme démonstratif, lequel est le point culminant ou la clé de voûte de la logique, puisque la démonstration est l’instrument de discernement du vrai et du faux dans le domaine de la théorie, et du bien et du mal dans le domaine de la pratique. Les catégories sont les termes “qui ne se disent pas en liaison”, c’est-à-dire qui ne sont pas pris dans une syntaxe attributive et qui se contentent encore de “signifier”. La doctrine des catégories est, en son fond, sémantique et ressortit à la logique. Mais elle reflète une division (diairesis) des étants en dix classes suprêmes, les “genres généralissimes”. Lorsqu’il commente le chapitre 2 des Catégories, Simplicius explique que la division en dix catégories s’inscrit elle-même dans une séquence dyade-tétrade-décade. Aristote, affirme-t-il, commence avec raison par donner une quadruple division des étants, puisque la tétrade est plus fondamentale que la décade, et que cette quadripartition se ramène elle-même à une bipartition : "[...] puisque, nous l'avons vu, le but (skopos) porte sur les mots simples et génériques, qui signifient les réalités simples et génériques, avant de les diviser (diairesis) en le plus grand nombre de termes possible – j'entends par là la division en dix catégories, au-delà desquelles on ne pouvait en trouver d’autres –, Aristote a jugé bon de commencer par une division minimale, car on ne pouvait rassembler les mots simples en un plus petit nombre de groupes : en effet cette façon de procéder était scientifique (epistêmonikón) parce que la décade est comprise dans la tétrade ; en effet en faisant la somme d’un, deux, trois et quatre, nous obtenons le nombre dix ; et la tétrade, à rebours, Aristote l’a rassemblée dans la dyade. Les quatre termes dont nous parlons sont : l’essence, l’accident, l’universel et le particulier. Les étants en effet se divisent en deux (ta onta diaireitai dikhôs) [...]". Ces deux termes sont l’essence (qui correspond à la première catégorie) et l’accident (sous le chef duquel se regroupent les neuf autres catégories). À la fin de l’explication de ce lemme, Simplicius précise que “la division en quatre termes n’est pas une division au sens propre, mais plutôt un dénombrement (anarithmêsis)”. L'analyse du logos apophantikós conduit donc le philosophe à distinguer entre dix “mots simples”, les dix catégories énumérées par Aristote, et qui constituent, aux yeux des exégètes antiques, une liste exhaustive en droit et close : la substance ou l’essence (ousia, ti esti), la quantité (poson), la qualité (poion), la relation (pros ti), l’agir et le pâtir (poiein, paschein), le "quand” et le “où” (pote, pou), la situation et l’avoir (keisthai, echein). Cette analyse ne coïncide en rien avec celle des grammairiens qui, à la fin de l'Antiquité, enseignent de manière fixe la doctrine des huit “parties du discours” (merê tou logou), progressivement élaborée comme le fruit de ce qu’ils nomment le merismos (“partition”). Ces huit “parties du discours” sont, dans l'ordre : le nom, le verbe, le participe, l’article, le pronom, la préposition, l'adverbe et la conjonction. Soucieux, pour plusieurs raisons, de distinguer leur recherche de l’activité grammaticale, les commentateurs néoplatoniciens d’Aristote ont soigneusement distingué entre ces deux modes d'analyse du logos (discours, phrase, proposition, énoncé) : la division des catégories, qui est fondée sur la diairesis des étants en dix genres – elle relève de la logique et participe de l’ontologie – et la merismos grammaticale des éléments du langage en huit classes (les huit “parties du discours”). La lecture des Catégories conduisait ces exégètes à rencontrer certaines difficultés. Tout d'abord, il y avait un débat sur la nature même des "catégories" (sont-elles des mots ? des notions ? des réalités ?). Des adversaires stoïciens d’Aristote (Athénodore et Cornutus) contestaient la complétude de la liste, insuffisante selon eux, puisqu’ils voyaient en elle le résultat d’une division des mots. Le débat sur l’origine grammaticale des catégories, ou sur le lien de cette doctrine avec l’objet propre et la discipline de la grammaire, illustré à l’époque moderne par les travaux d’auteurs aussi différents que Trendelenburg ou E. Benveniste, était déjà un débat antique. Autre question. Le début du De interpretatione présente un exposé sur le nom (onoma) et le verbe (rhêma), qui sont à la fois des termes logiques (sujet et prédicat) et les deux premières “parties du discours” selon la liste canonique des grammairiens. Comment rendre compte de la rencontre, mais aussi de la différence, entre le point de vue du philosophe lecteur de l’Organon et le point de vue du grammairien ? Comment expliquer la succession – dans la perspective de l’“ordre de lecture” néoplatonicien – des Catégories et du De interpretatione ? La tâche de tout commentateur néoplatonicien était donc d'expliquer à la fois comment distinguer entre l’analyse grammaticale d'une phrase et l’analyse logique d’un énoncé véridique, et quelle est l’articulation de la doctrine des Catégories et de la doctrine du De interpretatione. Il faut pour cela rappeler quels étaient les “buts” assignés par les exégètes à ces deux traités, qui étaient lus l’un à la suite de l’autre dans “l’ordre de lecture” des œuvres d’Aristote tel qu’il était pratiqué à la fin de l’Antiquité. [introduction p. 209-212] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/bzuFZeua3rVa1TS |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"680","_score":null,"_source":{"id":680,"authors_free":[{"id":1005,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1006,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":192,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Diebler, St\u00e9phane","free_first_name":"St\u00e9phane","free_last_name":"Diebler","norm_person":{"id":192,"first_name":"St\u00e9phane ","last_name":" Diebler","full_name":"Diebler, St\u00e9phane","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135973635","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1007,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1008,"entry_id":680,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":193,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"B\u00fcttgen, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"B\u00fcttgen","norm_person":{"id":193,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":" B\u00fcttgen","full_name":"B\u00fcttgen, Philippe","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1071071025","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les analyses de l'\u00e9nonc\u00e9: cat\u00e9gories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens","main_title":{"title":"Les analyses de l'\u00e9nonc\u00e9: cat\u00e9gories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens"},"abstract":"Avec les ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes n\u00e9oplatoniciens d\u2019Aristote, \u00e0 la fin de l'Antiquit\u00e9, l'int\u00e9r\u00eat constant port\u00e9 au discours par les philosophes grecs \u2013 depuis les sophistes, Platon, Aristote, les sto\u00efciens \u2013 trouve son point d\u2019ach\u00e8vement, tandis que s\u2019affirme nettement la diff\u00e9rence des deux points de vue \u2013 grammatical et logique \u2013 que l\u2019on peut porter sur l\u2019\u00e9nonc\u00e9. Cet effort de distinction caract\u00e9rise la litt\u00e9rature des commentaires sur l\u2019Organon, qui correspond, on le sait, au d\u00e9but du cours de philosophie n\u00e9oplatonicienne dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 tardive.\r\n\r\nL\u2019\u00e9tude de l\u2019Organon commen\u00e7ait, apr\u00e8s des enseignements prop\u00e9deutiques et une lecture de l\u2019Isagoge de Porphyre, par l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se du trait\u00e9 des Cat\u00e9gories, que domine une description fine du \"but\", du skopos. Les cat\u00e9gories sont les \u00e9l\u00e9ments constitutifs de l\u2019\u00e9nonc\u00e9 d\u00e9claratif (logos apophantik\u00f3s), seule esp\u00e8ce du logos \u00e0 \u00eatre vraie ou fausse, et qui est lui-m\u00eame la base du syllogisme d\u00e9monstratif, lequel est le point culminant ou la cl\u00e9 de vo\u00fbte de la logique, puisque la d\u00e9monstration est l\u2019instrument de discernement du vrai et du faux dans le domaine de la th\u00e9orie, et du bien et du mal dans le domaine de la pratique. Les cat\u00e9gories sont les termes \u201cqui ne se disent pas en liaison\u201d, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire qui ne sont pas pris dans une syntaxe attributive et qui se contentent encore de \u201csignifier\u201d. La doctrine des cat\u00e9gories est, en son fond, s\u00e9mantique et ressortit \u00e0 la logique. Mais elle refl\u00e8te une division (diairesis) des \u00e9tants en dix classes supr\u00eames, les \u201cgenres g\u00e9n\u00e9ralissimes\u201d.\r\n\r\nLorsqu\u2019il commente le chapitre 2 des Cat\u00e9gories, Simplicius explique que la division en dix cat\u00e9gories s\u2019inscrit elle-m\u00eame dans une s\u00e9quence dyade-t\u00e9trade-d\u00e9cade. Aristote, affirme-t-il, commence avec raison par donner une quadruple division des \u00e9tants, puisque la t\u00e9trade est plus fondamentale que la d\u00e9cade, et que cette quadripartition se ram\u00e8ne elle-m\u00eame \u00e0 une bipartition :\r\n\r\n\"[...] puisque, nous l'avons vu, le but (skopos) porte sur les mots simples et g\u00e9n\u00e9riques, qui signifient les r\u00e9alit\u00e9s simples et g\u00e9n\u00e9riques, avant de les diviser (diairesis) en le plus grand nombre de termes possible \u2013 j'entends par l\u00e0 la division en dix cat\u00e9gories, au-del\u00e0 desquelles on ne pouvait en trouver d\u2019autres \u2013, Aristote a jug\u00e9 bon de commencer par une division minimale, car on ne pouvait rassembler les mots simples en un plus petit nombre de groupes : en effet cette fa\u00e7on de proc\u00e9der \u00e9tait scientifique (epist\u00eamonik\u00f3n) parce que la d\u00e9cade est comprise dans la t\u00e9trade ; en effet en faisant la somme d\u2019un, deux, trois et quatre, nous obtenons le nombre dix ; et la t\u00e9trade, \u00e0 rebours, Aristote l\u2019a rassembl\u00e9e dans la dyade. Les quatre termes dont nous parlons sont : l\u2019essence, l\u2019accident, l\u2019universel et le particulier. Les \u00e9tants en effet se divisent en deux (ta onta diaireitai dikh\u00f4s) [...]\".\r\n\r\nCes deux termes sont l\u2019essence (qui correspond \u00e0 la premi\u00e8re cat\u00e9gorie) et l\u2019accident (sous le chef duquel se regroupent les neuf autres cat\u00e9gories). \u00c0 la fin de l\u2019explication de ce lemme, Simplicius pr\u00e9cise que \u201cla division en quatre termes n\u2019est pas une division au sens propre, mais plut\u00f4t un d\u00e9nombrement (anarithm\u00easis)\u201d.\r\n\r\nL'analyse du logos apophantik\u00f3s conduit donc le philosophe \u00e0 distinguer entre dix \u201cmots simples\u201d, les dix cat\u00e9gories \u00e9num\u00e9r\u00e9es par Aristote, et qui constituent, aux yeux des ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes antiques, une liste exhaustive en droit et close : la substance ou l\u2019essence (ousia, ti esti), la quantit\u00e9 (poson), la qualit\u00e9 (poion), la relation (pros ti), l\u2019agir et le p\u00e2tir (poiein, paschein), le \"quand\u201d et le \u201co\u00f9\u201d (pote, pou), la situation et l\u2019avoir (keisthai, echein).\r\n\r\nCette analyse ne co\u00efncide en rien avec celle des grammairiens qui, \u00e0 la fin de l'Antiquit\u00e9, enseignent de mani\u00e8re fixe la doctrine des huit \u201cparties du discours\u201d (mer\u00ea tou logou), progressivement \u00e9labor\u00e9e comme le fruit de ce qu\u2019ils nomment le merismos (\u201cpartition\u201d). Ces huit \u201cparties du discours\u201d sont, dans l'ordre : le nom, le verbe, le participe, l\u2019article, le pronom, la pr\u00e9position, l'adverbe et la conjonction.\r\n\r\nSoucieux, pour plusieurs raisons, de distinguer leur recherche de l\u2019activit\u00e9 grammaticale, les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens d\u2019Aristote ont soigneusement distingu\u00e9 entre ces deux modes d'analyse du logos (discours, phrase, proposition, \u00e9nonc\u00e9) : la division des cat\u00e9gories, qui est fond\u00e9e sur la diairesis des \u00e9tants en dix genres \u2013 elle rel\u00e8ve de la logique et participe de l\u2019ontologie \u2013 et la merismos grammaticale des \u00e9l\u00e9ments du langage en huit classes (les huit \u201cparties du discours\u201d).\r\n\r\nLa lecture des Cat\u00e9gories conduisait ces ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes \u00e0 rencontrer certaines difficult\u00e9s. Tout d'abord, il y avait un d\u00e9bat sur la nature m\u00eame des \"cat\u00e9gories\" (sont-elles des mots ? des notions ? des r\u00e9alit\u00e9s ?). Des adversaires sto\u00efciens d\u2019Aristote (Ath\u00e9nodore et Cornutus) contestaient la compl\u00e9tude de la liste, insuffisante selon eux, puisqu\u2019ils voyaient en elle le r\u00e9sultat d\u2019une division des mots. Le d\u00e9bat sur l\u2019origine grammaticale des cat\u00e9gories, ou sur le lien de cette doctrine avec l\u2019objet propre et la discipline de la grammaire, illustr\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque moderne par les travaux d\u2019auteurs aussi diff\u00e9rents que Trendelenburg ou E. Benveniste, \u00e9tait d\u00e9j\u00e0 un d\u00e9bat antique.\r\n\r\nAutre question. Le d\u00e9but du De interpretatione pr\u00e9sente un expos\u00e9 sur le nom (onoma) et le verbe (rh\u00eama), qui sont \u00e0 la fois des termes logiques (sujet et pr\u00e9dicat) et les deux premi\u00e8res \u201cparties du discours\u201d selon la liste canonique des grammairiens. Comment rendre compte de la rencontre, mais aussi de la diff\u00e9rence, entre le point de vue du philosophe lecteur de l\u2019Organon et le point de vue du grammairien ? Comment expliquer la succession \u2013 dans la perspective de l\u2019\u201cordre de lecture\u201d n\u00e9oplatonicien \u2013 des Cat\u00e9gories et du De interpretatione ?\r\n\r\nLa t\u00e2che de tout commentateur n\u00e9oplatonicien \u00e9tait donc d'expliquer \u00e0 la fois comment distinguer entre l\u2019analyse grammaticale d'une phrase et l\u2019analyse logique d\u2019un \u00e9nonc\u00e9 v\u00e9ridique, et quelle est l\u2019articulation de la doctrine des Cat\u00e9gories et de la doctrine du De interpretatione.\r\n\r\nIl faut pour cela rappeler quels \u00e9taient les \u201cbuts\u201d assign\u00e9s par les ex\u00e9g\u00e8tes \u00e0 ces deux trait\u00e9s, qui \u00e9taient lus l\u2019un \u00e0 la suite de l\u2019autre dans \u201cl\u2019ordre de lecture\u201d des \u0153uvres d\u2019Aristote tel qu\u2019il \u00e9tait pratiqu\u00e9 \u00e0 la fin de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9. [introduction p. 209-212]","btype":2,"date":"1999","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/bzuFZeua3rVa1TS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":192,"full_name":"Diebler, St\u00e9phane","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":193,"full_name":"B\u00fcttgen, Philippe","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":680,"section_of":363,"pages":"209-248","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":363,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Th\u00e9ories de la phrase et de la proposition, de Platon \u00e0 Averro\u00e8s","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Diebler1999","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1999","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1999","abstract":"Les th\u00e9ories de la phrase et de la proposition de l'Antiquit\u00e9 au Moyen \u00c2ge n'avaient jusqu'\u00e0 pr\u00e9sent jamais fait l'objet d'une \u00e9tude d'ensemble. On trouvera dans cet ouvrage, outre de nombreux travaux substantiels sur Platon et Aristote, des contributions novatrices sur la tradition sto\u00efcienne, ainsi que sur les aristot\u00e9lismes grec, syriaque, arabe et latin. [official abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Ui6DfE48AHsbm24","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":363,"pubplace":"Paris","publisher":"Presses de l\u2019\u00c9cole normale sup\u00e9rieure","series":"\u00c9tudes de litt\u00e9rature ancienne","volume":"10","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Les analyses de l'\u00e9nonc\u00e9: cat\u00e9gories et parties du discours selon les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens"]}
| Title | Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
| Pages | 231-262 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo , Rashed, Marwan , Sedley, David N. |
| Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
| Translator(s) |
The celebrated Archimedes Palimpsest has turned out to include not only seminal works of Archimedes but also two speeches by Hyperides and—identified as recently as 2005—fourteen pages of an otherwise unknown commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, in a copy written around 900 CE. Even if it contained nothing else, the citations that this last manuscript preserves from named earlier commentators—Andronicus, Boethus, Nicostratus, and Herminus—would be enough to make it an important addition to our knowledge of the Categories tradition. Its new evidence on the first-century BCE Aristotelian Boethus is especially significant. Two of the three citations from him (3,19–22; 14,4–12) probably embody his words more or less verbatim, to judge from the combination of direct speech and peculiarly crabbed language, very unlike the author’s usual style. In addition, the author mentions a group of anonymous commentators already criticized by Boethus, thus giving further unexpected insights into the early reception of Aristotle’s work. But the author’s own contributions are rich and fascinating too. If his date and identity could be established, the new text would make an even greater impact on our present state of understanding. In this article, it will be argued that the new fragment is, to all appearances, a remnant of the most important of all the ancient Categories commentaries, Porphyry’s lost Ad Gedalium. The grounds for such an attribution will be set out in this introduction. There will then follow a translation of the passage, and finally a commentary on the commentary. Our aim is not, in the space of a single article, to settle all the interpretative questions but, on the contrary, to initiate discussion, to develop our proposal regarding authorship, and, above all, to bring the already published text to the attention of interested scholars in the field of ancient philosophy. The commentary consists of seven consecutive folios, recto and verso, each with thirty lines per side and around forty letters per line. For ease of reference, we have renumbered the sides into a simple consecutive run, 1–14. Despite its severely damaged state, it has proved possible to decipher much of the greater part of the text on these fourteen pages. In what follows, we start with a brief description, then turn to the question of authorship. The entire fourteen pages deal, incompletely, with just two consecutive lemmata from the Categories. The passage already under discussion when the text opens is 1a20-b15, a strikingly long lemma, especially given that the same passage is divided into three lemmata by Ammonius and into five by Simplicius. The commentator has by this point already dealt, presumably at some length, with Aristotle’s well-known distinction there between properties that are ‘said of a subject’ and those that are ‘in a subject.’ As the text opens, he is discussing the later part of the lemma, 1b10–15, where Aristotle explains a principle of transitivity according to which when predicate B is said of subject A, and predicate C is said of subject B, then predicate C is said of subject A. Various aspects of this theorem, and problems arising from it, occupy the commentator from 1,1 to 7,8. But he then returns (7,8–9,30) to the opening part of the main lemma, its fourfold division of predicates (1a20-b9), which he presents as applying a neglected Aristotelian method of division, one that can also, as he proceeds to illustrate, be used effectively in the doxographical mapping out of philosophical theories. At 9,30–10,12, we encounter the transition to a new lemma, Categories 1b16–24, where Aristotle explains his thesis that any two different genera, such as animal and knowledge, which are not subordinated one to the other, will normally be divided by two specifically (tôi eidei) different sets of differentiae. The commentator takes the opportunity here to explain the basic vocabulary of genus, species, and differentia, as befits the opening pages of a work that was itself placed first in the Aristotelian corpus. Otherwise, his discussion, as for the preceding lemma, is largely taken up with the resolution of the exegetical problems raised by his predecessors. The Categories was the earliest Aristotelian treatise to attract commentaries and critiques from the first century BCE onwards. The numerous exegetes, of whose work only a small proportion has survived, included not only Aristotelians but also Platonists, Stoics, and others of uncertain philosophical allegiance. The surviving commentaries are in fact all the work of Neoplatonists, starting with the short question-and-answer commentary by Porphyry (third century CE), but they contain plentiful reports of the views of earlier commentators and critics. Since our commentary repeatedly cites previous commentators from the first century BCE to the second century CE but none later than that, we can be confident that it was written in the Roman imperial era, not earlier than the time of Alexander of Aphrodisias (c. 200), whose teacher Herminus is the latest commentator cited, and probably not very much later either. This enables us to set about searching for its author’s identity systematically, since we are fortunate, in the case of this particular Aristotelian treatise, to have from Simplicius (in Cat. 1,9–2,29 Kalbfleisch) a detailed survey of the commentary tradition down to the beginning of the sixth century. [introduction p. 231-233] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/boTHRcfBsw3NuBU |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1535","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1535,"authors_free":[{"id":2675,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2676,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2677,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":298,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sedley, David N.","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":298,"first_name":"David N.","last_name":"Sedley","full_name":"Sedley, David N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12143141X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2678,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus","main_title":{"title":"Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus"},"abstract":"The celebrated Archimedes Palimpsest has turned out to include not only seminal works of Archimedes but also two speeches by Hyperides and\u2014identified as recently as 2005\u2014fourteen pages of an otherwise unknown commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, in a copy written around 900 CE.\r\n\r\nEven if it contained nothing else, the citations that this last manuscript preserves from named earlier commentators\u2014Andronicus, Boethus, Nicostratus, and Herminus\u2014would be enough to make it an important addition to our knowledge of the Categories tradition. Its new evidence on the first-century BCE Aristotelian Boethus is especially significant. Two of the three citations from him (3,19\u201322; 14,4\u201312) probably embody his words more or less verbatim, to judge from the combination of direct speech and peculiarly crabbed language, very unlike the author\u2019s usual style. In addition, the author mentions a group of anonymous commentators already criticized by Boethus, thus giving further unexpected insights into the early reception of Aristotle\u2019s work.\r\n\r\nBut the author\u2019s own contributions are rich and fascinating too. If his date and identity could be established, the new text would make an even greater impact on our present state of understanding. In this article, it will be argued that the new fragment is, to all appearances, a remnant of the most important of all the ancient Categories commentaries, Porphyry\u2019s lost Ad Gedalium.\r\n\r\nThe grounds for such an attribution will be set out in this introduction. There will then follow a translation of the passage, and finally a commentary on the commentary. Our aim is not, in the space of a single article, to settle all the interpretative questions but, on the contrary, to initiate discussion, to develop our proposal regarding authorship, and, above all, to bring the already published text to the attention of interested scholars in the field of ancient philosophy.\r\n\r\nThe commentary consists of seven consecutive folios, recto and verso, each with thirty lines per side and around forty letters per line. For ease of reference, we have renumbered the sides into a simple consecutive run, 1\u201314.\r\n\r\nDespite its severely damaged state, it has proved possible to decipher much of the greater part of the text on these fourteen pages. In what follows, we start with a brief description, then turn to the question of authorship.\r\n\r\nThe entire fourteen pages deal, incompletely, with just two consecutive lemmata from the Categories. The passage already under discussion when the text opens is 1a20-b15, a strikingly long lemma, especially given that the same passage is divided into three lemmata by Ammonius and into five by Simplicius. The commentator has by this point already dealt, presumably at some length, with Aristotle\u2019s well-known distinction there between properties that are \u2018said of a subject\u2019 and those that are \u2018in a subject.\u2019 As the text opens, he is discussing the later part of the lemma, 1b10\u201315, where Aristotle explains a principle of transitivity according to which when predicate B is said of subject A, and predicate C is said of subject B, then predicate C is said of subject A. Various aspects of this theorem, and problems arising from it, occupy the commentator from 1,1 to 7,8. But he then returns (7,8\u20139,30) to the opening part of the main lemma, its fourfold division of predicates (1a20-b9), which he presents as applying a neglected Aristotelian method of division, one that can also, as he proceeds to illustrate, be used effectively in the doxographical mapping out of philosophical theories.\r\n\r\nAt 9,30\u201310,12, we encounter the transition to a new lemma, Categories 1b16\u201324, where Aristotle explains his thesis that any two different genera, such as animal and knowledge, which are not subordinated one to the other, will normally be divided by two specifically (t\u00f4i eidei) different sets of differentiae. The commentator takes the opportunity here to explain the basic vocabulary of genus, species, and differentia, as befits the opening pages of a work that was itself placed first in the Aristotelian corpus. Otherwise, his discussion, as for the preceding lemma, is largely taken up with the resolution of the exegetical problems raised by his predecessors.\r\n\r\nThe Categories was the earliest Aristotelian treatise to attract commentaries and critiques from the first century BCE onwards. The numerous exegetes, of whose work only a small proportion has survived, included not only Aristotelians but also Platonists, Stoics, and others of uncertain philosophical allegiance. The surviving commentaries are in fact all the work of Neoplatonists, starting with the short question-and-answer commentary by Porphyry (third century CE), but they contain plentiful reports of the views of earlier commentators and critics.\r\n\r\nSince our commentary repeatedly cites previous commentators from the first century BCE to the second century CE but none later than that, we can be confident that it was written in the Roman imperial era, not earlier than the time of Alexander of Aphrodisias (c. 200), whose teacher Herminus is the latest commentator cited, and probably not very much later either. This enables us to set about searching for its author\u2019s identity systematically, since we are fortunate, in the case of this particular Aristotelian treatise, to have from Simplicius (in Cat. 1,9\u20132,29 Kalbfleisch) a detailed survey of the commentary tradition down to the beginning of the sixth century.\r\n[introduction p. 231-233]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/boTHRcfBsw3NuBU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":298,"full_name":"Sedley, David N.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1535,"section_of":1419,"pages":"231-262","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus"]}
| Title | §2. Die problematischen Stellen & § 3. Die Scholien des Abrinc. 232 (Ay) |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2001 |
| Published in | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione |
| Pages | 141-159 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IMgXHC5ttxKH54j |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1199","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1199,"authors_free":[{"id":1770,"entry_id":1199,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u00a72. Die problematischen Stellen & \u00a7 3. Die Scholien des Abrinc. 232 (Ay)","main_title":{"title":"\u00a72. Die problematischen Stellen & \u00a7 3. Die Scholien des Abrinc. 232 (Ay)"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IMgXHC5ttxKH54j","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1199,"section_of":10,"pages":"141-159","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":10,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rashed2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2001","abstract":"In seiner Schrift \u201eDe generatione et corruptione\u201c entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch \u2013 und dies im angels\u00e4chsischen Sinne des Wortes \u2013 das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes \u201egenesthai\u201c zu kl\u00e4ren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einf\u00fchrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.\r\nDie philosophische \u00dcberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und \u2013 unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen \u2013 um das Verh\u00e4ltnis Gottes zu seinen Gesch\u00f6pfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die gro\u00dfe Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und sp\u00e4ter auf die Physiker-\u00c4rzte S\u00fcditaliens ausge\u00fcbt hat. Und man denke schlie\u00dflich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache \u00fcberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausge\u00fcbt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form m\u00fcnden kann.\r\nAuch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdr\u00fccklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der gr\u00f6\u00dften islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gef\u00fchrt.\r\nDer Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen \u00dcbersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zur\u00fcckgeht, dass die s\u00fcditalienischen \u00c4rzte es nicht vers\u00e4umt haben, sich unverz\u00fcglich die vielf\u00e4ltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version \u00fcbersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, \u2013 dass \u00fcbrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit S\u00fcditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden k\u00f6nnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten \u2013, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.\r\nDer Autor liefert mit seiner \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das f\u00fcr eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerl\u00e4\u00dfliche Stemma. Er f\u00fchrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befa\u00dft. Nur die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author\u2019s abstract] ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":10,"pubplace":"Wiesbaden","publisher":"Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag","series":"Serta Graeca. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte","volume":"12","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["\u00a72. Die problematischen Stellen & \u00a7 3. Die Scholien des Abrinc. 232 (Ay)"]}
| Title | κ und Nikephoros Chumnos |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2001 |
| Published in | Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione |
| Pages | 182-189 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Rashed, Marwan |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VUDuUkAYPBFA3Bq |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1200","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1200,"authors_free":[{"id":1772,"entry_id":1200,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u03ba und Nikephoros Chumnos","main_title":{"title":"\u03ba und Nikephoros Chumnos"},"abstract":"","btype":2,"date":"2001","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VUDuUkAYPBFA3Bq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1200,"section_of":10,"pages":"182-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":10,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":1,"language":"de","title":"Die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rashed2001","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2001","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2001","abstract":"In seiner Schrift \u201eDe generatione et corruptione\u201c entwickelt Aristoteles seine Antworten auf die Aporien, die sich aus dem Begriff des Werdens ergeben. Dabei geht es ihm ebenso darum, analytisch \u2013 und dies im angels\u00e4chsischen Sinne des Wortes \u2013 das gesamte Bedeutungsspektrum des griechischen Verbes \u201egenesthai\u201c zu kl\u00e4ren und zu ordnen, wie darum, auf rein physikalischer Ebene allgemeine Betrachtungen zur Einf\u00fchrung in die physiologischen Studien des biologischen Corpus anzustellen.\r\nDie philosophische \u00dcberlieferung hat, mehr oder minder bewusst, immer erkannt, dass es in Aristoteles Schrift um die Machbarkeit und den Platz einer physikalischen Untersuchung des Lebendigen ging und \u2013 unter monotheistischen Vorzeichen \u2013 um das Verh\u00e4ltnis Gottes zu seinen Gesch\u00f6pfen. Man denke nur an den Ps.-Okellos in hellenistischer Zeit, ferner an die galenische Tradition und an die bahnbrechenden physikalischen Intuitionen des Alexander von Aphrodisias. Man denke auch an die gro\u00dfe Anziehungskraft, die dieser Text auf die arabischen Philosophen und sp\u00e4ter auf die Physiker-\u00c4rzte S\u00fcditaliens ausge\u00fcbt hat. Und man denke schlie\u00dflich an die fast siebzig byzantinischen Manuskripte, die uns den Text des Traktats in der Originalsprache \u00fcberliefert haben. All das zeugt von der Faszination, die dieser Text auf Denker ausge\u00fcbt hat, die zu verstehen versucht haben, warum und wie die Welt der reinen Potenz und Materie unter bestimmten, sehr spezifischen Bedingungen in die Individualisierung der aktualisierten Form m\u00fcnden kann.\r\nAuch die Gegner waren sich der Bedeutung des Textes bewusst. So hat Philoponus den Traktat nicht ausdr\u00fccklich verworfen, wenn er auch in seinem De Aeternitate mundi contra Aristotelem und seinem De Aeternitate munde contra Proclum die These von der Ewigkeit der Welt und dem Fortbestand der Arten ablehnt, der ja, wie wir gerade gesehen haben, in dem Traktat eine grundlegende Bedeutung zukommt. Eine systematische Widerlegung von De generatione et corruptione wird erstmals von einem der gr\u00f6\u00dften islamischen Theologen zu Anfang des 10. Jahrhunderts gef\u00fchrt.\r\nDer Autor zeigt unter anderem, dass die wichtigste unter den drei arabischen \u00dcbersetzungen sehr wahrscheinlich auf das byzantinische Exemplar der physikalischen Traktate zur\u00fcckgeht, dass die s\u00fcditalienischen \u00c4rzte es nicht vers\u00e4umt haben, sich unverz\u00fcglich die vielf\u00e4ltigen, von Burgundio von Pisa zusammen mit seiner Version \u00fcbersetzten Randnotizen zunutze zu machen, \u2013 dass \u00fcbrigens die beiden Manuskripte, die mit S\u00fcditalien in Verbindung gebracht werden k\u00f6nnen, jeweils medizinische Texte enthalten \u2013, dass zahlreiche byzantinische Gelehrte es sich haben angelegen sein lassen, den Text durch oft interessante, zuweilen brillante Konjekturen zu verbessern.\r\nDer Autor liefert mit seiner \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte also nicht nur das f\u00fcr eine wirklich textkritische Ausgabe unerl\u00e4\u00dfliche Stemma. Er f\u00fchrt uns ebenso die Vielgestaltigkeit der Geschichte der Philosophie vor Augen, die sich ebenso mit der Theologie wie mit den Naturwissenschaften befa\u00dft. Nur die \u00dcberlieferungsgeschichte kann uns vor historischen Trugbildern bewahren, d. h. vor der pseudo-philosophischen Rekonstruierung riesiger Phantasiefresken. [Author\u2019s abstract] ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qUIbx9u9zA9cTrE","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":10,"pubplace":"Wiesbaden","publisher":"Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag","series":"Serta Graeca. Beitr\u00e4ge zur Erforschung griechischer Texte","volume":"12","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["\u03ba und Nikephoros Chumnos"]}