{"_index":"sire","_id":"843","_score":null,"_source":{"id":843,"authors_free":[{"id":1247,"entry_id":843,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":330,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo","free_first_name":"Leonardo","free_last_name":"Tar\u00e1n","norm_person":{"id":330,"first_name":"Tar\u00e1n","last_name":" Leonardo ","full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1168065100","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Speusippus and Aristotle on Homonymy and Synonymy","main_title":{"title":"Speusippus and Aristotle on Homonymy and Synonymy"},"abstract":"Modern scholarship since the middle of the last century has generally accepted it as an established fact that Speusippus made an exhaustive classification of words or names (onomata) in relation to the concepts they express and that he gave definitions of homonyma and synonyma only in reference to words and their meanings. That is to say, for him, homonyma and synonyma are properties of linguistic terms and not of things, whereas for Aristotle, especially in the first chapter of the Categories, they are properties of things.\r\n\r\nIn 1904, E. Hambruch attempted to show that sometimes Aristotle himself uses synonyma in the Speusippean sense just outlined and that in so doing, he was influenced by Speusippus. This thesis of Hambruch has been accepted by several scholars, including Lang, Stenzel, and Cherniss. Although some doubts about its soundness were expressed from different perspectives, it was only in 1971 that Mr. Jonathan Barnes made a systematic assault on it. Barnes contends, first, that Speusippus\u2019s conception of homonyma and synonyma is essentially the same as that of Aristotle, with the slight differences between their respective definitions being trivial, and second, that even though Aristotle occasionally uses homonyma and synonyma as properties of linguistic terms, this is because Aristotle's use of these words is not as rigid as the Categories might suggest. Barnes argues that Aristotle could not have been influenced by Speusippus, because Speusippus conceived homonymy and synonymy as properties of things, and, in any case, if influence were assumed, it could as well have been Aristotle influencing Speusippus.\r\n\r\nThough I believe Barnes\u2019 two main contentions are mistaken, I am here mainly concerned with the first part of his thesis. If he were right in believing that, for Speusippus, homonyma and synonyma are properties of things and not of names or linguistic terms, then Hambruch\u2019s notion that Speusippus influenced Aristotle when the latter uses synonymon as a property of names would be wrong, even if Barnes were mistaken in his analysis of the Aristotelian passages he reviews in the second part of his paper.\r\n\r\nOn the other hand, if Speusippus's classification is truly of onomata, then, since Barnes himself admits that Aristotle sometimes uses homonyma and synonyma as properties of names, the influence of Speusippus on Aristotle is at least possible. It becomes plausible and probable\u2014regardless of the relative chronology of their respective works\u2014when it is seen, as I shall try to show, that in some cases, Aristotle is in fact attacking doctrines that presuppose a use of homonyma and synonyma such as can be ascribed to Speusippus or is using synonymon in the Speusippean sense, different from Aristotle's own notion of synonymous words. [introduction p. 73-75]","btype":3,"date":"1978","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DXL3umbA2JfHxYC","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":330,"full_name":"Tar\u00e1n, Leonardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":843,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Hermes","volume":"106","issue":"1","pages":"73-99"}},"sort":["Speusippus and Aristotle on Homonymy and Synonymy"]}