DOCSLIB.ORG

Michael of Ephesus' Comments on Aristotle's De Memoria

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Michael of Ephesus' Comments on Aristotle's De Memoria NATIONAL AND KAPODISTRIAN UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS NATIONAL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS Michael of Ephesus’ comments on Aristotle’s De memoria Graduate Programme in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology Daphne Argyri Advisor: Katerina Ierodiakonou Athens 2016 ΔΙΠΛΩΜΑΤΙΚΗ ΕΡΓΑΣΙΑ Ονοματεπώνυμο: Δάφνη Αργύρη Μεταπτυχιακό πρόγραμμα: Ιστορία και Φιλοσοφία των Επιστημών και της Τεχνολογίας (ΙΦΕΤ) Α.Μ.: 004/13 Υπεύθυνη καθηγήτρια: Κατερίνα Ιεροδιακόνου Αναγνώστες: Βασίλης Καρασμάνης Παύλος Καλλιγάς i Τα σχόλια του Μιχαήλ Εφέσιου στο Περί μνήμης του Αριστοτέλη Στην πραγματεία του Περί μνήμης και αναμνήσεως ο Αριστοτέλης παρουσιάζει τη μνήμη ως βασικό στοιχείο της γνωστικής διαδικασίας, πολύ συγγενές με την αντίληψη. Πρόκειται για μια παθητική κατάσταση (ἕξις/πάθος, 449b25), δηλαδή για μια αποθήκη της ψυχής γεμάτη με εικόνες του παρελθόντος, που σε αντίθεση και συνέχεια του Πλάτωνα διακρίνεται εμφατικά από την σαφώς ενεργητική διαδικασία της ανάμνησης. Η ανάμνηση συνίσταται στη δυνατότητα ανάκλησης στο παρόν, εκουσίως ή ακουσίως, των εικόνων του παρελθόντος και ανήκει, σαν συλλογισμός (οἷον συλλογισμός τις, 453a10), στο μέρος της ψυχής που συνδέεται με την λογική ικανότητα του ανθρώπου. Το υπόμνημα του Μιχαήλ Εφέσιου (12ος αι. μ.Χ.) στο παραπάνω έργο του Αριστοτέλη (Σχόλια εἰς τὸ Περὶ μνήμης καὶ ἀναμνήσεως, 1-41) είναι το μόνο υπόμνημα σε αυτό που σώζεται ως τις μέρες μας και αποτελεί πολύ σημαντική πηγή για την ιστορία των δύο αυτών εννοιών. Οι οξυδερκείς παρατηρήσεις και τα σχόλια του Μιχαήλ φαίνεται κατ΄αρχάς πως έχουν επηρεαστεί από τις διάφορες σχολές σκέψης με τις οποίες ήταν εξοικειωμένος, αλλά παράλληλα εκφράζουν ξεκάθαρα και τις προσωπικές του αντιλήψεις πάνω στο θέμα. Συγκεκριμένα, φανερώνεται μια συγκροτημένη θεώρηση της μνήμης και της ανάμνησης καθώς και του τρόπου με τον οποίο σχετίζονται και αλληλεπιδρούν στο πλαίσιο μιας συστηματικής γνωστικής θεωρίας. Οι ιδέες του συνυφαίνονται με την εξήγηση του αριστοτελικού κειμένου και δικαιολογούν τις εκάστοτε ερμηνείες που προκρίνει έναντι άλλων σε διάφορα προβληματικά χωρία. Ειδικότερα, πραγματεύεται την μνήμη ως ενεργητική διαδικασία (ἐνέργεια) που προϋποθέτει κρίση και συνεπώς εμπλοκή και της διάνοιας (προσλογίζηται, 15.15). Σε σχέση με την ανάμνηση, έχει για τον σχολιαστή μεγαλύτερο φιλοσοφικό ενδιαφέρον και της αποδίδει εξηγητική προτεραιότητα, αφού ο μηχανισμός της μνήμης και η λειτουργία της προϋποτίθενται για την κατανόηση της ανάμνησης. Επίσης, αν και κάποια ζώα έχουν μνημονική ικανότητα, η ανθρώπινη μνήμη είναι κατά τον Μιχαήλ πιο εξελιγμένη. Οι άνθρωποι θυμούνται συχνά με ακρίβεια τον χρόνο κατά τον οποίο έμαθαν κάτι, καθώς και πρόσθετες λεπτομέρειες για τον τόπο όπου έλαβε χώρα ή το πρόσωπο από το οποίο το άκουσαν. Από την άλλη, η ανάμνηση παρουσιάζεται ως συγκεκριμένο είδος μνήμης (μνήμη τις, 19.2) που αφορά μόνο iii περιπτώσεις στις οποίες μερική λήθη έχει προηγηθεί. Επιπλέον, ο Μιχαήλ θεωρεί πως πρόκειται πάντα για εκούσια διαδικασία που επιτυγχάνεται και εξασκείται με συγκεκριμένο τρόπο. Είναι, δηλαδή, μια συστηματική αναζήτηση μέσω της σκέψης, με στόχο την αποκατάσταση μιας χαμένης μνήμης, ενώ ακουσίως δεν μπορεί να προκύψει. Αυτές οι θεωρητικές παραδοχές που σκιαγραφούν αδρομερώς τη θεωρία του Μιχαήλ για τη μνήμη και συνακόλουθα για την ανάμνηση, δίνουν συνοχή σε όλο το υπόμνημα της αριστοτελικής πραγματείας, αφού εξηγούν την ερμηνεία πολλών αποσπασμάτων του που χωρίς αυτές θα φαινόταν παράδοξη. Συνεπώς, η έννοια της μνήμης στον Μιχαήλ Εφέσιο εμπλουτίζεται με χαρακτηριστικά που δεν εμφανίζονται στον Αριστοτέλη. Μνήμη και ανάμνηση παρουσιάζουν αυξημένη πολυπλοκότητα, γι’ αυτό και η κατανόησή τους είναι πιο σύνθετη. Συμπεραίνεται, λοιπόν, ότι μέσω του βυζαντινού αυτού σχολιαστή αριστοτελικών έργων πλησιάζουμε ακόμη περισσότερο προς την ευρύτατη και πολυσύνθετη αντίληψη της μνήμης που απασχολεί τη σύγχρονη έρευνα. Ακόμη, αναδεικνύεται στο έργο του η φιλοσοφική πρωτοτυπία, καθώς δεν περιορίζεται σε εξηγητική εργασία ελάσσονος σημασίας, αλλά συμβάλλει καίρια στην ερμηνεία του θέματος που πραγματεύεται. Λέξεις κλειδιά: μνήμη, ανάμνηση, Αριστοτέλης, Μιχαήλ Εφέσιος iv Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................... 3 Aristotle on memory ...................................................................................................... 5 The concept of memory in the Aristotelian corpus ................................................... 5 The small treatise De memoria et reminiscentia ....................................................... 6 The Byzantine reception of the De memoria ............................................................... 11 Michael of Ephesus .................................................................................................. 11 The various paraphrases .......................................................................................... 14 Michael of Ephesus on memory and recollection ....................................................... 17 Memory .................................................................................................................... 19 a. Memory as an active process ........................................................................... 19 b. Memory as prior to recollection ....................................................................... 24 Recollection .............................................................................................................. 30 a. Recollection as a kind of memory ..................................................................... 30 b. Recollection as a deliberate process ................................................................ 32 Recollection as a process of analysis ........................................................................... 35 The importance of mnemonic techniques ............................................................... 37 The Topica and the Rhetorica in the background .................................................... 40 Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................................... 45 Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 47 1 Abstract In his treatise On memory and recollection Aristotle discusses memory as a part of the cognitive process, very similar to perception; it is a passive state, in the sense that it is the storage of past images in the soul, and is distinguished from the active process of recollection. Michael of Ephesus’ commentary of this Aristotelian work is its only surviving Greek commentary and constitutes an important source for the history of the concept of memory. Michael’s insightful comments and observations seem to have been influenced by various schools of thought with which he was acquainted, but at the same time they clearly present his own views on the subject. These views form a systematic understanding of the concept of memory, according to which he explains the Aristotelian text and adjusts the interpretation. Memory is treated by him as an active process that involves judgement, and thus the reasoning faculty of the soul, too. In comparison to recollection, it is a more philosophically significant concept, since it is exegetically prior to it. Recollection is treated by Michael as a kind of memory, which is always deliberate and only employed when partial memory loss has occurred. This recollecting process is described by Michael as a process of analysis, greatly influenced by Aristotle’s reference to mnemonic teqniques. These theoretical presuppositions that roughly sketch Michael’s conception of memory, and accordingly his account of recollection, provide coherence to his entire commentary of the Aristotelian treatise and support his interpretations of various passages that would otherwise seem arbitrary. Memory in Michael, therefore, is enriched with characteristics that are not to be found in Aristotle; it acquires a higher level of sophistication and, as a result, it turns out to be broader and more elaborate than the simple memory attributed to other animals, and one step more evolved towards the extremely broad and vastly complex contemporary conception. Key words: memory, recollection, Aristotle, Michael of Ephesus 3 Aristotle on memory The concept of memory in the Aristotelian corpus Aristotle’s views on memory are intertwined with many aspects of his philosophy and it is hard for the researcher to present a unified Aristotelian ‘theory’ of memory that will include every relative element traced in his writings and, at the same time, will be coherent and completely free of contradiction. As the recent literature reveals1, modern scholars are still trying to bring forward the Aristotelian views on the subject and disentangle the complication of the relevant accounts found in his various treatises. In particular, the concept of memory is closely related to the discussions in Aristotle’s physiological treatises, namely the De anima and the De sensu, since it belongs to the sensing part of the soul, which is responsible for sense perception and imagination (φαντασία). In those treatises, the necessary background of Aristotle’s psychology is provided. A more detailed and thorough account of memory and related topics is given in the De memoria, which focuses on its ontological aspect, namely on the objects of memory and their ontological status, the physiological processes involved in the formation of memories and its
Load more

Recommended publications
  • International Workshop 10–11 June 2021, 16.00–19.00 (Gmt+1)
    TRANSFER OF KNOWLEDGE — TRANSFER OF IDEAS — TRANSFER OF EXPERIENCES LATIN TRANSLATIONS OF GREEK TEXTS FROM THE 11TH TO THE 13TH CENTURY INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP 10–11 JUNE 2021, 16.00–19.00 (GMT+1) Organizers: Paraskevi Toma (University of Münster) Péter Bara (Hungarian Academy of Sciences) Realizing the fact that there are different factors that influence translations, we set the dynamics of linguistic and cultural exchange from Greek into Latin as the focus of our workshop. Even though the knowledge of Latin in Byzantium dropped notably after the sixth century, it was surrounded by Latin-speaking territories, while a multilingual community continued to exist in Italy. Furthermore, the Crusades strengthened the ties between the Eastern and Western Mediterranean, a fact that unavoidably entailed knowledge transfer from Greek into Latin. The workshop will examine translators as mediators of knowledge and translated texts as sources of direct as well as indirect/intertextual knowledge. Rich material can be found, for example, in the fields of theology, medicine, and law. As regards translators, we will discuss their educational background and literacy, their networks and social status, along with their (in many cases) multicultural identity. Regarding translated texts, we will explore their literary genre as part of contemporary political or religious dialogue, identify Greek linguistic variants that were adapted by the Latin language, and finally consider the impact of translators themselves on their translations. Further questions to be discussed during the workshop are: v Who commissioned translations and for what purpose? v Did the translators follow a particular translation technique or school? v What role did these persons play as interpreters and as translators? v How have translations of legal and religious texts been used in multilingual environments? v Did translations/interpretations affect political or religious decisions or even cause controversies? * Add MS 47674 (c.
    [Show full text]
  • Trans. Greek Thot Handout
    11/14/19 TRANSMISSION OF GREEK THOUGHT TO THE WEST PLATO & NEOPLATONISM Chalcidius (late 3rd-early 4th cent. Christian exegete): incomplete translation & commentary of Timeaus Henricus Aristippus in Sicily (12th c.): translated the Meno and Phaedo Leonardo Bruni (c. 1370-1444/Florence) translated a selection of Plato’s dialogues (from Greek to Latin). Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499/Florence): 1st complete translation into Latin of Plato’s works (publ. 1496), and translation of Plotinus’s Enneads into Latin (1492). Neoplatonic thought was transmitted in the following: (a) Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy (written 524, in prison) (b) Macrobius’ Commentary on Cicero’s Dream of Scipio (written c. 400 CE). (c) Pseudo-Dionysius. A collection of writings attributed to Dionysius the Aeropagite (see Acts 17:34), but 19th century scholarship determined to be written c. 500 by a disciple of Proclus, held considerable authority throughout the middle ages and was a Christian Neoplatonism. (d) Theologica Aristotelis: this summary of Books 4-6 of Plotinus’s Enneads had been wrongly attributed to Aristotle (until 13th century) (e) Liber de Causis: this work based on Proclus’s Elements of Theology was wrongly attributed to Aristotle (until 13th century). ARISTOTLE Victorinus (4th century): Latin translations of Aristotle’s Categories and De interpretatione, as well as of Porphyry’s Isagoge. Boethius (470-524/Padua?): translated the entire Organon and wrote commentaries on all but the Posterior Analytics), as well as a translation of Porphyry’s introduction (Isagoge) to the Categories, but only De Interp. and Categories were readily available until 12th century. James of Venice (c.1128): translated Posterior Analytics; with the rediscovery of other translations by Boethius, this completed the Organon.
    [Show full text]
  • DEMONSTRATION and Scientific KNOWLEDGE in WILLIAM OF
    Longeway-000.FM 11/8/06 2:29 PM Page iii Demonstration and Scientific knowledge in william of ockham ATranslation of Summa Logicae III-II: De Syllogismo Demonstrativo, and Selections from the Prologue to the Ordinatio JO HN LEE LO NGEWAY University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana © 2007 University of Notre Dame Press Longeway-000.FM 11/8/06 2:29 PM Page iv Copyright © 2007 by University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, Indiana 46556 www.undpress.nd.edu All Rights Reserved Manufactured in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Longeway, John. Demonstration and scientific knowledge in William of Ockham : a translation of Summa Logicae III-II : De Syllogismo Demonstrativo, and selections from the Prologue to the Ordinatio / John Lee Longeway. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn-13: 978-0-268-03378-1 (cloth : alk. paper) isbn-10: 0-268-03378-1 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Knowledge, Theory of. 2. Science —Methodology. 3. Logic. 4. Aristotle. Posterior analytics. 5. William, of Ockham, ca. 1285– ca. 1349. Summa logicae. 6.William, of Ockham, ca. 1285– ca. 1349. I. Title. bd161.l66 2006 160 —dc22 2006032380 ∞This book is printed on acid-free paper. © 2007 University of Notre Dame Press Longeway-01.Intro 11/8/06 2:28 PM Page 1 introduction The medievalist needs no convincing that William of Ockham (ca. 1285–1347) is worthy of study. At one time Ockham’s views might have been regarded as a clever but uninstructed sign of the decay of Scholastic discourse, but, with the work of such scholars as Philotheus Boehner, Ernest Moody, and Marilyn McCord Adams, those days are now receding into the past.
    [Show full text]
  • Boethius: Editions and English Translations
    Boethius: Editions and English Translations https://www.historyoflogic.com/biblio/boethius-editions.htm History of Logic from Aristotle to Gödel by Raul Corazzon | e-mail: [email protected] The Works of Boethius. Editions and English Translations BIBLIOGRAPHICAL GUIDES ABOUT THE PHILOSOPHY OF BOETHIUS 1. Luca Obertello. Severino Boezio. Genova: Accademia Ligure di Scienze e Lettere 1974. Vol. II: Bibliografia boeziana. Bibliografia generale pp. 323 2. Joachim Gruber. Boethius 1925-1998 in: Lustrum. Internationale Forschungsberichte aus deim Bereich des klassischen Altertums, 39, 1997 pp. 307-383 and 40, 1998 pp. 199-259 (see in particular the Section C. Schriften zur Logik pp. 353-373, 117 titles). 3. Christophe Erismann. Originalité et latinité de la philosophie de Boèce. Note bibliographique, Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie, 51, 2004 pp. 277–289. 4. John Marenbon, (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Boethius, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 311–339. 5. Joachim Gruber. Kommentar zu Boethius de Consolatione Philosophiae. Berlin: de Gruyter 2006. Second fully revised and extended edition (first edition 1978). Anhang. Systematische Literaturverzeichnis pp. 409-444. 6. Phillips, Philip Edward. "Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius: A Chronology and Selected Annotated Bibliography", in: A Companion to Boethius in the Middle Ages, edited by Noel Harold Kaylor, Jr., and Philip Edward Phillips, Leiden: Brill, 2012, pp. 551-589. For more information see: John Magee and John Marenbon, Appendix: Boethius' Works, in: John Marenbon (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Boethius, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 303-310. "This Appendix is designed as a user's guide to Boethius' works. It is divided according to the four main spheres of his activity - (A) mathematical subjects; (B) logic; (c) theology; (D) the Consolation - with additional sections on (E) lost works and (F) works sometimes misattributed to him.
    [Show full text]
  • Al-Farabi's Short Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics
    Al-Farabi’s Short Commentary on Aristotle’s Prior Analytics Translated, with an Introduction and Notes, by Nicholas Rescher University of Pittsburgh Press AL-FARABI’S SHORT COMMENTARY ON ARISTOTLE’S PRIOR ANALYTICS AL-FARABI’S SHORT COMMENTARY ON ARISTOTLE’S PRIOR ANALYTICS Translated from the Original Arabic with Introduction and Notes BY NICHOLAS RESCHER Professor of Philosophy in the University of Pittsburgh UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH PRESS 1963 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 63-10581 Printed in Great Britain by Butler & ‘Tanner Ltd, Frome and London This book is dedicated, with gratitude and with love, to my mother and to the memory of my father. PREFACE This English version of al-Farabi’s “Short Commentary on Prior Analytics”, made from Mlle Mubahat Tirker’s recent edition of the Arabic text (Revue de la Faculté des Langues, d Histoire, et de Géographie de? Université d Ankara, vol. 16 [1958]), is the first appearanceof this treatise in a European language. It is hoped that this addition to the dozen or so Arabic logical texts now accessible to the non- Orientalist will contribute to a wider appreciation of the great mass of work constituting the Arabic contribution to logic, which remains so largely terra incognita. I wish to thank Mrs. Shukrieh Kassis and especially Mr. Seostoris Khalil for help with the translation. I am in- debted to Mr. Storrs McCall, Dr. J. Ackrill, and particu- larly to Professor D. M. Dunlop for reading my typescript and suggesting needed improvements. Although some strengths of this work owetheir existence to others, all of its weaknesses and errors must be laid at my own door.
    [Show full text]
  • Plato and Aristotle on What Is Common to Soul and Body. Some Remarks on a Complicated Issue
    Chapter 8 Plato and Aristotle On What Is Common to Soul and Body. Some Remarks on a Complicated Issue Marcelo D. Boeri Abstract Aristotelian scholars tend to reject the Cartesian dualism as applied to Aristotelian model of the soul, and favor the view that denies that the soul is radically opposed to body. This is so due the fact that Aristotle takes the living being to be a unified whole (composed by form and matter). I start by reminding that both Plato and Aristotle argue that by their very nature soul and body are different, but at the same time they maintain that there are things that are ‘common’ to soul and body. The issue is how it is possible that two entities so different in nature have something in common. I argue that the key to the problem lies in the fact that both Plato and Aristotle regard the soul and the body as capacities, and that – in so far as they are able to act and to be acted upon – such is the ‘commonality’ shared both by soul and body. Given that capacities are relational entities, both of them turn out to be very plastic notions that should not necessarily be understood as entirely foreign to each other. 8.1 Introduction Both Plato and Aristotle famously argue that soul and body are two different kinds of entities: the soul is immaterial and the body material; the former is able to set in motion the body, and the latter is motionless.1 If this is so, one might assume that by their very nature soul and body are two profoundly disparate entities.
    [Show full text]
  • ARISTOTELIAN ETHICS in BYZANTIUM* York: George Braziller
    Linos G. BENAKIS Vahanian, G. (1965b, December 8). Swallowed Vahanian, G. (1966b). Theology and ‘The End UDC 1/14:17 up by Godlessness. The ChristianCen- of the Age of Religion’. (J. B. Metz, Linos G. BENAKIS tury, LXXXII(49), 1505-1507. Ed.) Concilium: Theology in the Age Vahanian, G. (1966a). No other God. New of Renewal, XVI, 99-110. ARISTOTELIAN ETHICS IN BYZANTIUM* York: George Braziller. Abstract This paper argues that research in the primary sources must precede the investigation of Byzan- tine philosophy. Two points are to be considered, on the one hand, the gathering of texts, and, on the other hand, the study of texts in relation to their sources. Thus the external evidence as well as the internal evidence of texts should be examined. In this double regard, the manuscripts containing Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics are considered. Their authors are Michael of Ephesos, Eustratios of Nicaea, “Anonymus”, Heliodoros of Prussa, Georgios Pachymeres, Michael Psellos, John Italos, Nikephoros Blemmydes, George Gemistos Plethon. Keywords: Byzantine philosophy, Aristotle’s Byzantine Commentators, Michael of Ephesos, Eustratios of Nicaea, “Anonymus”, Heliodoros of Prussa, Georgios Pachymeres, Michael Psellos, John Italos, Nikephoros Blemmydes, George Gemistos Plethon. This paper is primarily technical in nature. b. The study of texts in relation to their It will argue that when one begins to examine a sources. Namely, the identification of less investigated area of the field of Byzantine sources – distinguishing between instan- Philosophy, research in the primary sources ces of mere borrowing and instances of a must still precede every interpretative act and more critical incorporation of such sour- critical approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting Aristotle's Posterior Analytics in Late Antiquity
    Interpreting Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics in Late Antiquity and Beyond edited by Frans A. J. de Haas, Mariska Leunissen, and Marije Martijn Boston/Leiden: Brill, 2010. Philosophia Antiqua 124. Pp. ISBN 978–90–04–20127–9. Cloth $153.00 xxiv + 269 Reviewed by Sten Ebbesen University of Copenhagen [email protected] Recent years have seen the publication of a number of collective volumes studying the fate of particular Aristotelian works through the centuries.The present volume is a welcome addition to the bibliography. Its 10 essays are arranged in three parts: (1) Concept Formation in Posterior Analytics II 19, (2) Metaphysics as a Science, and (3) Demonstration, Definition and Causation. Inevitably, the quality of such a collective work is not even all the way through but on the whole it is very satisfactory, and the concen- tration on three important topics gives some coherence to the volume. The title’s promise of information about the fate of An. post. in Late Antiquity is fulfilled by most of the constituent essays, whereas there is precious little about the ‘Beyond’ except for one essay about Eu- stratius of Nicaea and one about Roger Bacon plus some that discuss pseudo-Philoponus on An. post. 2 (whom the authors wrongly tend to identify with Philoponus himself; see more about this below). The editors’ introduction contains some sweeping statements about the way An. post. was treated in the Middle Ages. At least as regards the Latin world, it is hardly true that ‘either the commentaries had an external aim, primarily the defense of theology as a science, or the commentators selected a fairly limited number of themes useful to the areas of philosophy of their interest’, as we read on page xix.
    [Show full text]
  • The Truth in Aristotle and Sophonias
    THE TRUTH IN ARISTOTLE AND SOPHONIAS Alexantra Ntotsika DOI: 10.17846/CL.2017.10.1.36-42 Abstract: NTOTSIKA, Alexantra. The Truth in Aristotle and Sophonias. The purpose of the article is to discover the philosophical game between truth and falsehood, as it is presented in the Aristotelian treatise De Anima and in the Sophonias’ Commentary on Aristotle’s text, which is included in Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (C.A.G.). In De Anima truth is related to the combinations of data, which are derived from sense perceptions (αἰσθήσεις), imagination (φαντασία, phantasia) and the intellect (νοῦς, nous). The intellect connects the initial data through logic and observes the variety of the combinations of reality. During that combinational process of logic, it is possible that falsehood can penetrate, so that the combinations of intellect do not comply with the existing combinations of reality. As a result, falsehood, according to Aristotle, originates from the non-proper synthesis and analysis of the meanings. On the contrary, Sophonias rests upon elements of the Platonic philosophy, claiming that the divine intellect coincides with God and truth. Key words: Aristotle, De Anima, Sophonias, Commentaria in Aristotle Graeca Abstrakt: NTOTSIKA, Alexantra. Pravda podľa Aristotela a Sophoniasa. Cieľom tohto článku je odhaliť filozofickú hru medzi pravdou a nepravdou, ako je táto prezentovaná v Aristo- telovom pojednaní De Anima a v Sophoniasovom komentári k Aristotelovmu textu, ktorý sa nachádza v rámci diela Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (C.A.G.). Pravda je v spise De Anima chápaná vo vzťahu ku kombinácii dát, ktoré sú odvodené zo zmyslového vníma- nia (αἰσθήσεις), predstavivosti (φαντασία, phantasia) a intelektu (νοῦς, nous).
    [Show full text]
  • The Earliest Translations of Aristotle's Politics and The
    ECKART SCHÜTRUMPF THE EARLIEST TRANSLATIONS OF ARISTOTle’S POLITICS AND THE CREATION OF POLITICAL TERMINOLOGY 8 MORPHOMATA LECTURES COLOGNE MORPHOMATA LECTURES COLOGNE 8 HERAUSGEGEBEN VON GÜNTER BLAMBERGER UND DIETRICH BOSCHUNG ECKART SCHÜTRUMPF THE EARLIEST TRANSLATIONS OF ARISTOTLe’s POLITICS AND THE CREATION OF POLITICAL TERMINOLOGY WILHELM FINK unter dem Förderkennzeichen 01UK0905. Die Verantwortung für den Inhalt der Veröffentlichung liegt bei den Autoren. Bibliografische Informationen der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen National­ biblio grafie; detaillierte Daten sind im Internet über www.dnb.d­nb.de abrufbar. Alle Rechte, auch die des auszugweisen Nachdrucks, der fotomechanischen Wieder gabe und der Übersetzung vorbehalten. Dies betrifft auch die Vervielfälti­ gung und Übertragung einzelner Textabschnitte, Zeichnungen oder Bilder durch alle Verfahren wie Speicherung und Übertragung auf Papier, Transparente, Filme, Bänder, Platten und andere Medien, soweit es nicht § 53 und 54 UrhG ausdrücklich gestatten. © 2014 Wilhelm Fink, Paderborn Wilhelm Fink GmbH & Co. Verlags­KG, Jühenplatz 1, D­33098 Paderborn Internet: www.fink.de Lektorat: Sidonie Kellerer, Thierry Greub Gestaltung und Satz: Kathrin Roussel, Sichtvermerk Printed in Germany Herstellung: Ferdinand Schöningh GmbH & Co. KG, Paderborn ISBN 978-3-7705-5685-4 CONTENT 1. The earliest Latin translations of Aristotle— William of Moerbeke 9 2. Nicole Oresme 25 3. Leonardo Bruni’s principles of translation 28 4. Bruni’s translation of Aristotle’s Politics 33 5. The political terminology in Bruni’s translation— a new Humanist concept of res publica? 39 6. The controversy over Bruni’s translation— contemporary and modern 65 Appendix 77 Bibliography 78 This study goes back ultimately to a response I gave on two pa­ pers presented on “Translating Aristotle’s Politics in Medieval and Renaissance Europe” at the “International Conference on Translation.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle's Journey to Europe: a Synthetic History of the Role Played
    Aristotle’s Journey to Europe: A Synthetic History of the Role Played by the Islamic Empire in the Transmission of Western Educational Philosophy Sources from the Fall of Rome through the Medieval Period By Randall R. Cloud B.A., Point Loma Nazarene University, 1977 M.A., Point Loma University, 1979 M. Div., Nazarene Theological Seminary, 1982 Submitted to the: School of Education Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Program: Educational Policy and Leadership Concentration: Foundations of Education and the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation Committee: _______________________________________ Suzanne Rice, Chairperson _______________________________________ Ray Hiner _______________________________________ Jim Hillesheim _______________________________________ Marc Mahlios _______________________________________ Sally Roberts Dissertation Defended: November 6, 2007 The Dissertation Committee for Randall R. Cloud certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Aristotle’s Journey to Europe: A Synthetic History of the Role Played by the Islamic Empire in the Transmission of Western Educational Philosophy Sources from the Fall of Rome through the Medieval Period Dissertation Committee: _______________________________________ Suzanne Rice, Chairperson _______________________________________ Ray Hiner _______________________________________ Jim Hillesheim _______________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Triumphus Matris
    LES ENLUMINURES LES ENLUMINURES, LTD. Le Louvre des Antiquaires 2 Place du Palais-Royal 2970 North Lake Shore Drive 75001 Paris (France) Chicago, IL 60657 (USA) tel. +33 (0)1 42 60 15 58 • fax. +33 (0)1 40 15 00 25 tel. +773 929 5986 [email protected] fax. +773 528 3976 [email protected] [ORGANON]. PORPHYRY, Isagoge (transl. Boethius); ARISTOTLE. Categoriae (tr. Boethius); Liber peri hermenias (tr. Boethius); ANICIUS MANLIUS SEVERINUS BOETHIUS, Liber de divisione; De topicis differentiis; De categoricis syllogismis; ARISTOTLE, Liber topicorum; De sophisticis elenchis; Priora analytica (trs. Boethius); Posteriora analytica In Latin, decorated manuscript on parchment France, Paris, or Normandy(?), c. 1150-1200 and c. 1250-1300 173 ff., preceded and followed by modern paper flyleaves, composite manuscript, apparently complete (collation: i14 [8, with an added separate gathering of 6 inserted], ii-vi8, vii-x8, xi6, xii5 [of 6, first leaf of quire cancelled, with no apparent interruption of text sequence], xiii-xiv6, xv8, xvi-xix8, xx-xxii8), first part (ff. 1-54v) written in a very regular 12th century minuscule, remainder of manuscript written in a variety of tight and highly abridged protogothic or gothic bookhands, four written above-top-line, various hands, with at least five distinguishable (hand A, ff. 1-4v and ff. 11-54v; hand B, ff. 55-97; hand C, ff. 98-117v; hand D, ff. 118-172; hand E, ff. 5-10v [inserted in the middle of the first gathering]), in brown or black ink, six different textblocks each ruled to a different pattern of between 29 and 38 lines, prickings still visible, guide letters in the margin, paragraph marks in red, opening initials of pink or brown and pink, one larger decorated initial P in red and brown with face drawn in red in the infill (a tonsured monk?), diagrams in text or in margins (ff.
    [Show full text]