Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

Methodos Savoirs et textes 19 | 2019 : Dire et vouloir dire dans les arts du la

Methodos Savoirs et textes 19 | 2019 : Dire et vouloir dire dans les arts du langage anciens et tardo-antiques Dire et vouloir dire dans les arts du langage anciens et tardo-antiques The Byzantine Reception of Aristotle’s Theory of Meaning KATERINA IERODIAKONOU Résumés Français English Les érudits byzantins ont composé, principalement à des fins éducatives, des paraphrases et des commentaires sur la logique aristotélicienne et, en particulier, sur le De interpretatione. Certaines de ces œuvres trahissent clairement leur origine ancienne et d'autres témoignent soit de traditions anciennes perdues, soit des tentatives des Byzantins d'expliquer le texte d'Aristote. Mon but est de présenter les commentaires byzantins sur les premiers chapitres du De interpretatione, dans lesquels nous trouvons des traces de la théorie de la signification d'Aristote. Je commence par rassembler le matériel textuel pertinent du XIe au XVe siècle, ensuite, je discute des points de vue byzantins sur quatre sujets qui ont un intérêt philosophique et historique : les mêmes pensées sont-elles partagées par tous ? En quoi les ressemblances, les symboles et les signes diffèrent-ils ? Les noms sont-ils par nature ou par convention ? Les parties des noms composés signifient-elles ? Byzantine scholars composed, primarily for educational purposes, paraphrases and commentaries on Aristotelian logic and, in particular, on Aristotle’s De interpretatione. Some of these works clearly betray their ancient provenance and others are testimony either to lost ancient traditions or to the Byzantines’ own attempts to make sense of Aristotle’s puzzling text. My aim is to present the Byzantine comments on the first chapters of the De interpretatione, in which we find traces of Aristotle’s theory of meaning. I begin by collecting the relevant textual material from the eleventh to the fifteenth century and, then, I discuss the Byzantine views on four topics that seem to be of some philosophical and historical interest: Are the same thoughts shared by all people? In what way do likenesses, symbols and signs differ? Are names by nature or by convention? Do parts of composite names have meaning? Entrées d’index The Byzantine Reception of Aristotle’s Theory of Meaning https://journals.openedition.org/methodos/5303 1 of 18 19/06/2019, 23:15 Mots-clés : De interpretatione, signification, symboles, signes, ressemblances, pensées, noms, Psellos Michel, Magentenos Léon, Gennadios Scholarios Georges Keywords : De interpretatione, meaning, symbols, signs, likenesses, thoughts, names, Psellos Michael, Magentenos Leo, Gennadios Scholarios George Texte intégral Introduction “Now spoken sounds are symbols of affections in the soul, and written marks symbols of spoken sounds. And just as written marks are not the same for all men, neither are spoken sounds. But what these are in the first place signs of – affections of the soul – are the same for all; and what these affections are likenesses of – actual things – are also the same.” (De int. 1, 16a3-8; trans. J. L. Ackrill)1 Five lines at the beginning of Aristotle’s De interpretatione are commonly considered as the core of the Aristotelian theory of meaning: 1 This central passage in ancient philosophy is rather concise and famously difficult to interpret. The commentators of late antiquity studiously tried to unravel its claims and explicate it by producing detailed scholia of which only some have survived. The commentaries on the De interpretatione written by Alexander of Aphrodisias, Porphyry, Iamblichus and Syrianus are unfortunately lost, although we are able to partly reconstruct them on the basis of Ammonius’ and Boethius’ extant commentaries on this treatise2. In addition, the following late-antique commentaries have also survived: very few scholia by Olympiodorus in codex Urbinas graecus 35, edited by Leonardo Tarán3; a commentary by the much disputed seventh century commentator Stephanus, who seems to depend upon Ammonius but also upon an independent source4; finally, an anonymous commentary in codex Parisinus graecus 2064, also edited by Leonardo Tarán who argues, against Adolf Busse, the editor of Ammonius’ commentary, that this is not by Olympiodorus but by some scholar in the Alexandrian school of the late sixth or seventh century who was influenced, too, by Ammonius5. 2 But the late-antique commentaries on Aristotle’s De interpretatione are not at the centre of my attention here; rather, I am interested in showing that these are not the only Greek commentaries on this Aristotelian treatise. For the De interpretatione was undoubtedly one of the ancient works that Byzantine scholars customarily included in their philosophical curriculum, which typically started with the study of Porphyry’s Isagoge and continued with Aristotle’s Categories, the De interpretatione and the Prior Analytics 1.1-7. This suggests of course that in Byzantium, too, there was a need for composing commentaries on Aristotelian logic primarily for educational purposes. Indeed, we have Byzantine writings commenting, in particular, on the De interpretatione, of which some clearly betray their ancient provenance whereas others are testimony either to lost ancient traditions or to the Byzantines’ own attempts to make sense of Aristotle’s puzzling text. In what follows, I begin by presenting the relevant textual material from the eleventh to the fifteenth century and, then, I examine four topics relevant to the Aristotelian theory of meaning, which are discussed in these works and seem to be of some philosophical and historical interest. 3 The Byzantine Reception of Aristotle’s Theory of Meaning https://journals.openedition.org/methodos/5303 2 of 18 19/06/2019, 23:15 The Byzantine Commentaries Michael Psellos (1503), Ammonii Hermei commentaria in librum Peri hermeneias. Magentini archiepiscopi Mitylenensis in eundem enarratio (ed. Aldus Manutius), Venice 6 John Italos (1956), Questiones Quodlibetales (ed. P. Joannou), Ettal, Buch-Kunstverlag Ettal Michael of Ephesus: codex Parisinus graecus 1917 Michael Psellos (1018-1076) was one of the most erudite and prolific thinkers of the Byzantine Middle Ages7. He taught all branches of philosophy and greatly contributed to the revival of philosophical studies in Byzantium. More specifically, he provided philosophical instruction by closely reading and commenting on Aristotle’s logical treatises, which he thought should be given a propaedeutic role before dealing with more philosophical issues, but which he also saw as an intellectual exercise that enables one to dispose of heretical views. Psellos had a close familiarity with most of the ancient Greek commentators and drew extensively, for instance, from Alexander of Aphrodisias, Ammonius, Olympiodorus and John Philoponus. In fact, he seems to have been well acquainted with the whole corpus of Greek philosophy, which at the time was somewhat larger than it is now, so he read and used philosophical works that have since been lost. 4 There are at least 37 codices of Psellos’ paraphrase of the De interpretatione, dating from the twelfth to the sixteenth century, and the attribution to Psellos is well attested. Its characteristics, namely that it aims at making Aristotle’s wording clearer, that it is not long – Ammonius’ commentary is 272 pages in its CAG edition, while Psellos’ text is approximately 90 pages –, that it is in a continuous flow and that the author speaks as if he were Aristotle himself, classify it as a paraphrase rather than as a commentary8. Aldus Manutius’ edition of this paraphrase suffers from a great number of misreadings, displacements of passages and unnecessary additions9. 5 John Italos (c.1025-?) was a student of Psellos and occupies a special place in the history of Byzantine thought for having been put on trial and condemned by the Orthodox Church on the charge of having advocated the systematic use of logical reasoning in clarifying central theological issues10. He wrote commentaries on Aristotle’s logical treatises, in particular on the Topics, and two small treatises on dialectic and on the Aristotelian syllogisms. He also composed a collection of ninety-three answers to philosophical questions posed to him by his students, the Quaestiones quodlibetales, among which there are some that concern Aristotle’s De interpretatione. Unfortunately, none of them focuses on the topics raised in the first chapters. 6 The Byzantine Reception of Aristotle’s Theory of Meaning https://journals.openedition.org/methodos/5303 3 of 18 19/06/2019, 23:15 Leo Magentenos (1503), Ammonii Hermei commentaria in librum Peri hermeneias. Magentini archiepiscopi Mitylenensis in eundem enarratio (ed. Aldus Manutius), Venice Nikephoros Blemmydes (1865), Epitome logica (ed. J. Wegelin), Patrologia Graeca 142, 675-1004 George Pachymeres (1548), Epitome logica, We know next to nothing about Michael of Ephesus’ life, except that he most probably belonged, together with Eustratios of Nicaea, in princess Anna Komnena’s circle of Byzantine scholars, who had in the twelfth century the task of producing commentaries on Aristotle’s works11. Michael’s comments on the Sophistici elenchi, the Nicomachean Ethics, part of the Metaphysics, some treatises from the Parva naturalia and from Aristotle’s biological works have survived. There are also unedited scholia on the De interpetatione attributed to him in the margins of codex Parisinus graecus 1917. According to Michele Trizio, who has studied them closely, they seem to reproduce sections of Psellos’ paraphrase12. 7 Leo Magentenos possibly lived in the late twelfth early thirteenth century and wrote commentaries on Aristotle’s logical works13. Only parts of his commentaries have appeared in critical editions and, consequently, have not been systematically studied. In the case of his commentary on the Sophistici elenchi, Sten Ebbesen has claimed that Magentenos did little more than rework older collections of scholia and compose a brief uploads/S4/ the-byzantine-reception-of-aristotles-th.pdf