Bibliography on the Ancient Commentaries on Aristotle's De Interpretatione

Bechtle, Gerald. 2005. "Connaissance divine et contingence humaine dans le commentaire d'Ammonius au De interpretatione. Théologisation d'un traité aristotélicien logique dans la philosophie tardo-antique." In Signe et prédiction dans l'Antiquité : actes du colloque international interdisciplinaire de Créteil et de Paris, 22-23-24 mai 2003, edited by Kany-Turpin, José, 97–109. Saint-Etienne: Publications de l'Université de Saint-Etienne.

Bonelli, Maddalena. 2009. "Alexandre d'Aphrodise et le De interpretatione." In Interpréter le De Interpretatione, edited by Husson, Suzanne, 51–68. Paris: Vrin.

Brunschwig, Jacques. 2008. "Le chapitre 1 du De Interpretatione. Aristote, Ammonius et nous." Laval Théologique et Philosophique no. 64:35–87.

"La treizième réunion du Symposium Aristotelicum, en 1993, a eu une très étrange et très triste destinée. Certes, elle s’est tenue dans le cadre enchanteur de la Chartreuse de Pontignano, près de Sienne; elle a donné lieu, comme ses devancières, à des communications et à des discussions d’un vif intérêt. Mais l’édition de ses Actes, pour une fois, s’est heurtée à d’insurmontables obstacles. La charge en avait été initialement confiée à Mario Mignucci et à Michael Frede, deux des plus fidèles et stimulants participants du Symposium. Ils ont été tragiquement enlevés à notre admiration et à notre affection, le premier en 2004, sous les coups d’une longue et impitoyable maladie, le second en 2007, en conséquence d’un accident imprévisible et brutal. Le retard causé à la publication du XIIIe Symposium par cette double et douloureuse disparition n’a pu être comblé jusqu’à présent; les membres du comité organisateur m’ont assuré qu’à leur avis, il risquait de ne l’être jamais.

Par une coïncidence émouvante (en tout cas pour moi), trois semaines seulement avant la mort de Michael Frede, mon collègue et ami Thomas De Koninck me demanda si j’accepterais de publier dans le Laval théologique et philosophique l’étude que j’avais présentée, plus de dix ans auparavant, au XIIIe Symposium. Je passe sur les divers scrupules qui me firent hésiter quelque temps. L’insistance du Professeur De Koninck et celle de ses collaborateurs, Paul Asselin et Martin Achard, en eurent finalement raison, ce dont je leur suis très profondément reconnaissant.

Quant à ce texte, le lecteur voudra bien se souvenir de la longue histoire dont il est l’ultime fruit. Il serait bien difficile de le résumer: il est, il tente d’être cela même pour quoi il se donne, à savoir pour une lecture détaillée du commentaire par Ammonius du célèbre premier chapitre du De Interpretatione, lecture focalisée non pas tellement sur la lumière que le commentaire ancien peut (ou peut ne pas) jeter sur la lettre et sur l’interprétation du texte aristotélicien que sur ce que ce commentaire peut nous apprendre sur les méthodes, les choix, les comportements intellectuels de son auteur lui-même, et sur ses propres motivations philosophiques et pédagogiques face à un texte comme celui qu’il entreprend de commenter."

Busse, Adolf. 1900. "Über die in Ammonius’ Kommentar erhaltene Überlieferung der aristotelischen Schrift Περì éρμηνείας." In Festschrift Johannes Vahlen, zum siebengizsten Geburtstag, 73–85. Berlin: G. Reimer.

De Rijk, Lambertus Marie. 2003. "Boethius on De interpretatione (ch. 3): is he a reliable guide?" In Boèce ou la chaîne des savoirs. Actes du Colloque International de la fondation Singer Polignac (Paris, 8-12 juin 1999), edited by Galonnier, Alain, 207–227. Paris: Peeters Publishers.

"There can be no doubt whatsoever about Boethius's exceptional merits for transmitting Aristotle's logic to us. But while 'Aristotelian' logic is in many respects synonymous with 'Aristotelico-Boethian' logic, the question can be raised whether Aristotle himself was an 'Aristotelian'. To give just one example: from Lukasiewicz onwards there has been much debate among scholars about the telling differences between traditional syllogistic and that of the Prior Analytics. (1)

In this paper I intend to deal with two specimens of Boethius's way of commenting upon Aristotle's text. They are found in his discussion of De interpretatione, chapters 2 and 3, which present Aristotle's views of ónoma and rhema. (2) One concerns the semantics of indefinite names, the other that of isolated names and verbs." p. 227

(1) Jan Lukasiewicz, Aristotle's Syllogistic from the Standpoint of Modern Formal Logic, Oxford, 1951. G. Patzig, Aristotle's Theory of the Syllogism. A logico-philological study of Book A of the Prior Analytics, Dordrecht, 1969.

(2) Rhema properly stands for 'what is said of', including not only our 'verb' but also adjectives, when used in attributive position. One should realise, however, that 'verb' refers to a word class, rather than a semantic or syntactical category, as rhema does.

"Conclusion. Returning now to Boethius' manner of commenting upon Aristotle's texts, the following points can be made:

[1] In the wake of Ammonius, (3) Boethius explains [De int.] 16b22-25 on the apophantic level, i.e. in terms of statement-making, instead of framing significative concepts, i.e. on the onomastic level.

[2] Whereas in Ammonius' report of the predecessors, Alexander and Porphyry, as well as his own exposition of the issue, there are many clues to the previous alternative reading and interpretation on the onomastic level, Boethius does not even refrain from cleansing the text (including his 'quotations'), by changing, at any occurrence, 'ens' into 'est'.

[3] In doing so, Boethius decisively influenced the commentary tradition on account of the purport of De int. 3, 16b19-25. He effectively contributed to the common verdict on this paragraph in terms of 'a curious medley'.

[4] As far as the semantics of the indefinite verb (3, 16b14-15) is concerned, Boethius' apparently adhering to the so-called 'Ammonii recensio' was far less desastrous for the common understanding of Aristotle on this score, and, in effect, merely provided us with some stimulating Medieval discussions of the semantics of term infinitation.

[5] Finally by way of speculative surmise, it might be suggested that both the fact that Boethius dealt with the 'Ammonii recognise' without reading it in his lemma of 16b14-15, as well as his rather ruthlessly interfering in the quotations of the pre-Ammonian sources, should make it more plausible that Boethius had extensive, but incomplete marginal notes to his Greek text of Aristotle at his disposal, rather than a full copy of Ammonius' commentary (or those of other Greek commentators).

To comment upon Aristotle's work naturally includes developing his lore. But nothing can ever guarantee that this will happen ad metem auctoris. (4)"

(3) It is unmistakably plain that in De int. ch. 3, Boethius is strongly influenced by what he read in Ammonius (or in marginal notes on Ammonius' view).

(4) Cf. the interesting paper on this subject by Frans A.J. de Haas, "Survival of the Fittest? Mutations of Aristotle's Method of Inquiry in Late Antiquity" (forthcoming). [Conference: The Dynamics of Natural Philosophy in the Aristotelian Tradition (and beyond), Nijmegen, 16-20 August 1999.]

Diebler, Stéphane. 2002. "Les canons de Proclus: problèmes et conséquences de l'interprétation syriano-proclienne du De interpretatione." Dionysius no. 20:71–94.

"Ammonius' commentary on the third section of Aristotle's De interpretatione offers insight into the hermeneutical and logical debates of the 5th-cent. Neoplatonic school in Athens. These debates reveal one of the rare cases of a theory that was developed by Proclus in contradiction to that of his teacher Syrianus, and in the course of which the authoritative status of De interpretatione as a carefully composed, syntagmatic work was itself put into question. Ammonius was concerned to establish the coherence of Int. 19 B 19-20 B 12. According to his interpretation, this section falls into two further sections, arranged around two types of logical sequences : the first section (19 B 19-20 A 6) is explained according to an interpretation that derives from Syrianus ; the second (20 A 20-20 B 13) recalls the canons of Proclus."

Fernández Garrido, María Regla. 1996. "Los comentarios griegos y latinos al « De interpretatione » aristotélico hasta Tomás de Aquino." Emerita.Boletín de Lingüística y Filología Clásica no. 64:307–323.

Furlani, Giuseppe. 1922. "Aristoteles, De Interpretatione, 16a, 6-7, nach einem syrisch erhaltenen Kommentar." Zeitschrift für Semitistik und verwandte Gebiete no. 1:34–37.

Gaskin, Richard. 1993. "Alexander’s Sea Battle: A Discussion of Alexander of Aphrodisias De Fato." Phronesis no. 38:75–94.

Gombocz, Wolfgang L. 1990. "Apuleius is Better Still: A Correction to the Square of Opposition [De Interpretatione 180, 19-181, 7 Thomas]." Mnemosyne no. 43:124–131.

Groneberg, Michael. 2002. "Ammonios und die Seeschlacht. Seels Entlarvung des Aktualismus der Neuplatoniker." Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie no. 49:236–250.

Hasmaoui, Chantal. 2003. "La tradition des commentaires grecs sur le De interpretatione (Int.)." In Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques. Supplément, edited by Goulet, Richard, 122–173. Paris: CNRS Éditions.

Hugonnard-Roche, Henri. 2005. "Scolies syriaques au Peri Hermeneias d'Aristote." In Scientia in margine. Études sur les marginalia dans les manuscrits scientifiques du Moyen Âge à la Renaissance, edited by Jacquart, Danielle and Burnett, Charles F., 27–55. Genève: Droz.

———. 2011. "Du commentaire a la reconstruction: Paul le Perse interprete d’Aristote (sur une lecture du Peri Hermeneias, à propos des modes et des adverbes selon Paul, Ammonius et Boece)." In Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad, edited by Lössl, Josef and Watt, John W., 207–224. Burlington: Ashgate.

Ieodiakonou, Katerina. 2002. "Psellos' Paraphrasis on Aristotle's De interpretatione." In Byzantine Philosophy and its Ancient Sources, edited by Ieodiakonou, Katerina, 157–181. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Ierodiakonou, Katerina. 2019. "The Byzantine Reception of Aristotle's Theory of Meaning." Methodos no. 19:1–17.

Abstract: "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?"

Isaac, Jean. 1953. Le Peri hermeneias en Occident de Boèce à Saint Thomas. Histoire littéraire d'un traité d'Aristote. Paris: Vrin.

Kreter, Fabian. 2006. Kann Fabius bei einer Seeschlacht sterben: Die Geschichte der Logik des Kontingenzproblems von Aristoteles, De interpretatione 9 bis Cicero, De fato. Trier: WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.

Kretzmann, Norman. 1987. "Boethius and the Truth about Tomorrow's Sea Battle." In Logos and Pragma. Essays on the Philosophy of Language in Honour of Professor Gabriel Nuchelmans, edited by De Rijk, Lambertus Marie and Braakhuis, Henk A.G., 63–97. Nijmegen: Ingenium Publishers.

Reprinted in D. Blank- N. Kretzmann (eds.), Ammonius on Aristotle On Interpretation 9 with Boethius on Aristotle On Interpretation 9, Duckworth: London 1998, pp. 24-52.

Magee, John. 1989. Boethius on Signification and Mind. Leiden: Brill.

Contents: Acknowledgements IX; Sigla X; Abbreviations and Editions XI; Introduction 1; I. Aristotle: Peri Hermeneias I, 16a3-9; 7; II. Boethius’ Translation 49; III. Orandi Ordo 64; IV. Cogitabilis Oratio 93; Afterword 142; Bibliography 150; Index Locorum 155; Index Nominum et Rerum 162-165.

"The present work is divided into four chapters, taking as its starting point the lines of Aristotle’s Peri Hermeneias around which Boethius’ theory of signification turns. The first chapter of the study plunges in medias res, and for that the reader’s patience is requested. The Greek text is both difficult and compressed, and necessarily brings into consideration questions of the history of transmission and commentary, as well as numerous aspects of Aristotle’s thought both in this and in other works. But since Boethius translated either all or part of the Peri Hermeneias before commenting upon it, and then revised the translation for the second commentary; and since in his translation, as in all translations, there is an element of “commentary” upon the meaning of the original, it has been thought necessary to come to a clear understanding of what Aristotle wrote before proceeding to the translation and commentaries. After careful examination of the Greek passage and of the questions it poses, there follows in the second chapter an analysis of Boethius’ Latin translation of the same, and of the interpretation implicitly contained therein." (pp. 1-2)

———. 2010. "On the Composition and Sources of Boethius' Second Peri hermeneias Commentary." Vivarium no. 48:7–54.

Abstract: "The paper is in three parts, prefaced by general remarks concerning Boethius’ logical translations and commentaries: the text of the Peri Hermeneias as known to and commented on by Boethius (and Ammonius); the organizational principles behind Boethius’ second commentary on the Peri Hermeneias; its source(s). One of the main purposes of the last section is to demonstrate that the Peri Hermeneias commentaries of Boethius and Ammonius are, although part of a common tradition, quite independent of one another, and special consideration is given to the question of how Boethius interpreted and shaped the doxographical material concerning Aspasius, Herminus, and Alexander that had been handed down to him by Porphyry."

"Sifting through the interpretations of earlier commentators was painstaking and laborious, Porphyry’s interpretation of 19b22-24 alone requiring, as we have seen, seventeen pages of commentary. By about the year 515 Boethius’ attention must have been turning toward other projects, to new translations and commentaries, the theological tractates, logico-rhetorical monographs, and so on. If the Peri Hermeneias were allowed to consume so much time and energy, what would become of the rest of the Organon and Aristotle, not to mention Plato? Even for a treatise as rich and complex as the Peri Hermeneias Boethius may have had finally to calculate his “point of diminishing returns.” He may have grown impatient with the project, his copy of Porphyry may have failed, or both. Had he known of the premature end that awaited him, he might have thought differently about how to weight the commentary, might have sought compensation in other projects for problems left unsolved in connection with the Peri Hermeneias; but as it is, he left a work which, despite its imperfections, has proved to be one of his most fascinating and influential." (p. 54)

———. 2011. "Preliminary Observations on the Textual Tradition of Boethius' First Peri Hermeneias Commentary." In Logic and Language in the Middle Ages: A Volume in Honour of Sten Ebbesen, edited by Fink, Jakob Leth, Hansen, Heine and Mora-Márquez, Ana María 13–26. Leiden: Brill.

"In editing the first of Boethius’ two commentaries on Aristotle’s Peri Hermeneias Carl Meiser essentially worked from a single witness, F (below), which he ranked both antiquissimus and optimus. (1) Readings from three other munich manuscripts, e (MS Bayer. Staatsbibl. clm 14401, s. XI), M (below), and T (MS Bayer. Staatsbibl. clm 18479, s.XI), he reported perpetuo more but with varying degrees of accuracy. (2) He further consulted two st. Gall manuscripts, G (below) and S (MS Stiftsbibl. 817, s. XI-XII) omnibus locis paulo difficilioribus — citing them only infrequently, however, in his critical apparatus. from Peri Hermeneias 17b20 on, F preserves excerpted lemmata, and Meiser correctly recognized that the supplemented versions found in other witnesses violate Boethius’ intention. (3)

But F is in fact neither antiquissimus nor optimus, and Meiser’s edition suffers from a particular failure to distinguish between the three versions of Boethius’ Peri Hermeneias translation, two of which form his commentary lemmata. Hence a full assessment of the evidence seems called for. In what follows, I hope to shed some light on certain salient characteristics of the textual tradition." (p. 13)

(1) Boethius, Commentarii in librum aristotelis περι ερμηνειασ, pars prior versionem continuam et primam editionem continens, ed. C. Meiser (Leipzig: Teubner, 1877), pp. VIII-X.

(2) Cf. J. Magee, ‘On the Composition and sources of Boethius’ second Peri Hermeneias Commentary’, Vivarium 48 (2010), 15, n. 32.

(3) Above, n. 1; cf. Aristotle, De interpretatione vel Periermenias: Translatio Boethii, ed. L. Minio-Paluello, AL 2.1 (Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1965), pp. XI; LIII.

[MS F = Munich Bayer. Staatsbibl. clm 6374, s. IX

MS M = Munich Bayer. Staatsbibl. clm 14377, s. X-XI]

Menne, Albert, and Öffenberger, Niels. 1980. "Über eine mehrwertige Darstellung der Oppositionstheorie nicht-modaler Urteilsarten. Zur Frage der Vorgeschichte der mehrwertigen Logik." Philosophia (Athens) no. 10-11:304–327.

Nachdruck: A. Menne und N. Öffenberger (Hrsg.), Zur modernen Deutung der Aristotelischen Logik. Band III: Modallogik und Mehrwertigkeit, Hildesheim: Georg Olms 1988, s. 253-273.

Mignucci, Mario. 1989. "Truth and modality in late antiquity: Boethius on future contingent propositions." In Le teorie delle Modalità. Atti del Convegno internazionale di storia della logica, edited by Corsi, Giovanni, Mangione, Corrado and Mugnai, Massimo, 47–78. Bologna: CLUEB.

———. 1996. "Ammonius on Future Contingent Propositions." In Rationality in Greek Thought, edited by Frede, Michael and Striker, Gisela, 279–310. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

———. 1998. "Ammonius’ sea battle." In Ammonius: On Aristotle On Interpretation 9 with Boethius: On Aristotle On Interpretation 9, edited by Blank, David L. and Kretzmann, Norman, 53–86. Ithaca: Conell University Press.

———. 2001. "Ammonius and the Problem of Future Contingent Truth." In Ammonius and the Seabattle: Texts, Commentary and Essays, edited by Gerhard, Seel, 247–284. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Øhrstrøm, Peter, and Per Hasle, F. V. 1995. "Łukasiewicz’s Contribution to Temporal Logic." In Temporal Logic, 149–154. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Chapter 2.3.

"In a series of articles during the 1920's and 30's the famous Polish logician Jan Lukasiewicz advocated a particular interpretation of Aristotle's discussion of the status of sentences about the contingent future, as developed in his 'sea-fight' example (from De Interpretatione chapter IX). Lukasiewicz' interpretation crucially rests on a rejection of the principle of bivalence. In fact, this kind of interpretation was not new, but had been formulated as early as by the Epicureans. However, Lukasiewicz presented this position more clearly than had ever

been done before, and developed it with the aid of modern symbolic logic." (p. 149)

(...)

"Lukasiewicz' interpretation was disputed by Prior [1962, p. 240 ff.], who pointed out a significant difference between Lukasiewicz's trivalent logic and Aristotle's text: according to Aristotle it is true already today, that there either there will or there will not be a sea-fight tomorrow, even though the truth value of the two constituents of the disjunction are separately unknown, or possibly 'undetermined'. " (p. 152)

References

Arthur Norman Prior, Prior, Formal Logic, Oxford: Clarendon Press (second edition)

Rosier-Catach, Irène. 2009. "Sur le verbe substantif, la prédication et la consignification - Peri hermeneias 16 b 20-25 dans les traductions et les commentaires en latin." In Interpreter le De interpretatione, edited by Husson, Suzanne, 97–131. Paris: Vrin.

Seel, Gerhard, ed. 2001. Ammonius and the Seabattle: Texts, Commentary and Essays. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

In collaboration with Jean-Pierre Schneider and Daniel Schulthess.

Ammonius on Aristotle: De Interpretation 9 (and 7, 1-17) Greek Text established by A. Busse, reprint from CAG IV/ν.

English translation by David Blank, revised by J.-P. Schneider and Gerhard Seel.

Philosophical Commentary by Gerhard Seel.

Essays by Mario Mignucci and Gerhard Seel.

Contents: Part I Preliminaries

1.1 Acknowledgements 3; 1.2 Explication of the Terminology and Symbols 5; 1.3 List of Symbols 7; 1.4 List of Principles and Formulas 10;

Part II Gerhard Seel: Introduction. Future Contingencies: The Problem and its Possible Solutions 13;

Part III Ammonius on Aristotle: De Interpretatione 9 (and 7,1-17): Greek text with an English translation

III.l De Interpretatione 7,1-17 39; III .2 De Interpretatione 9 72;

Part IV Gerhard Seel: Philosophical Commentary

IV.l Introduction 131; IV.2 Commentary on Chapter 7,1-17 135; IV.3 Commentary on Chapter 9 147;

Part V Essays

V.l Gerhard Seel: Ammonius' Semantics of the Assertoric Sentence 213; V.2 Gerhard Seel: 'In a Definite Way True'; Truth-Values and their Modalisation in Ammonius 234; V.3 Mario Mignucci: Ammonius on Future Contingent Propositions 247;

Part VI Bibliography 285;

Part VII Indices

VII.l Index of Names 307; VII.2 Index of Passages Cited 310-312.

Sillitti, Giovanna. 1980. Tragelaphos. Storia di una metafora e di un problema. Napoli: Bibliopolis.

Suto, Taki. 2011. Boethius on Mind, Grammar and Logic. A Study of Boethius' Commentaries on Peri Hermeneias. Leiden: Brill.

Contents: Acknowledgements XI; Note to the Reader XV; Chart 1: Contents of Boethius’ Two Commentaries on Peri hermeneias XVII; Chart 2: Chronology of Boethius’ Works XIX; Chart 3: Chronology of Major Thinkers and Writers XXI; Chart 4: Relationships among Ancient Commentators XXIII;

Introduction 1; Part One. Boethius on Words and Minds. I. The Significatum of Spoken Words 17; II. Words as ‘Notae’ 43; III. Three Types of Speech 77; Part Two. Boethius on Logic and Grammar. IV. Nouns, Verbs, and Conjunctions 117; V. The Varieties of Speech 151; VI. The Verb 'To Be' 187; VII. General Conclusions 223; Bibliography 237; Index of Ancient and Medieval Texts 269; Index of Names (Ancient and Medieval Authors) and Subjects 285; Index of Modern Authors (Selective) 294-296.

"This work aims to be a study of his commentaries on Aristotle’s Peri hermeneias (De interpretatione). For my discussion of these commentaries, I use Carl Meiser’s edition, which is the only critical edition currently available. Deviations from the critical edition are recorded in the footnotes of the quotations.

Boethius wrote two commentaries on Peri hermeneias. In Meiser’s edition, the first commentary is only 195 pages while the second commentary is 502 pages, more than double the length of the first. Writing two commentaries on the same work was not unusual for him. He also wrote two commentaries on Porphyry’s Isagoge, but the first commentary is three-fifths the length of the second commentary.(3) The striking difference in length between the two commentaries on Peri hermeneias reflects his careful planning of the role of each commentary: the first one to present basic lines of Aristotle’s thought, the second one to provide much more detailed explanations.(4) In the second commentary, he often introduces past discussions of Greek commentators and notions that he does not mention in the first commentary. The fact that he purposely wrote two commentaries should be seriously taken into account in considering the apparent inconsistencies and contradictions between them.

This work is primarily devoted to the second commentary. I include the first commentary principally in the following two cases: First, I point out where his explanation significantly differs from that of the second commentary. His account in the second commentary can be mostly regarded as a development of the first, but the first commentary sometimes has explanations incompatible with those in the second commentary.(5) Boethius seems to make contradictory statements rather deliberately, intending to present simple interpretations in the first commentary, knowing that they are not the best.(6) Second, I refer to the first commentary when it illuminates or enhances his explanations in the latter.

I sometimes look at Boethius’ other works, mainly logical ones, in relation to the main questions surrounding the second commentary.

Where the texts contribute to our understanding, I discuss them in the relevant sections. Otherwise, I refer to them in the footnotes. For my interpretations of the commentaries, I have relied very little on his treatises on theology, liberal arts, and his renowned masterpiece, The Consolation of Philosophy. It is important to consider why the same individual wrote all these works in different disciplines. I would not deny that these independent treatises could illuminate his logical works. In fact, I believe they do, and I will argue so in the concluding chapter.

I find, however, that these independent treatises have many differences from his logical works. For an accurate interpretation of his logical works we should be very careful in relying on these treatises.(7)" (pp. 1-2)

(3) In Brandt’s edition of Boethius’ commentaries on Isagoge, the second commentary is 214 pages while the first commentary is 130 pages. Boethius does not allude to a second commentary in the first.

(4) In PH1 31.6-32.3; In PH2 186.2-9; 250.20-251.4; 294.5-8. For the dates of composition of these commentaries, see Chart 2, p. XIX.

(5) His distinction between simple and composite propositions, which I discuss in Chapter 5, is an example of this.

(6) Sten Ebbesen (The Aristotelian Commentator (2009): 49) points this out with textual evidence: In PH1 132.3 sqq. and In PH2 276.8 sqq.

(7) Scholars have pointed out this danger. Antony Lloyd (The Anatomy of Neoplatonism (1990): 2, n.2) cautions against cross-referencing Boethius’ different works. Ebbesen says, “one should be cautious in assuming consistency between the doctrines of the Aristotle commentaries and that of Consolation of Philosophy” ("Review of J. Magee’s Boethius on Signification and Mind.” Vivarium 29, 1991, p. 153). Vincent Spade (Boethius against Universals: Arguments in the Second Commentary on Porphyry, 1996) criticizes Peter King’s use of Boethius’ De trinitate for understanding his second commentary on Isagoge.

Tarán, Leonardo. 1978. Anonymous' Commentary on Aristotle's De Interpretatione (Codex Parisinus Graecus 2064). Meisenheim am Glan: A. Hain.

Teixidor, Javier. 1996. "L'introduction au De interpretatione chez Proba et Paul le Perse." In Symposium Syriacum VII. Uppsala University, Department of Asian and African Languages, 11-14 August 1996, edited by Lavenant, René, 293–301. Roma: Pontificio Istituto Orientale.

Repris comme Chapitre V dans: J. Teixidor, Aristote en syriaque: Paul le Perse, logicien du VIe siècle, Paris: Éditions CNRS 2003, pp. 99-121.

Tessier, Andrea. 1979. Il testo di Aristotele e le traduzioni armene. Padova: Antenore.

Indice: Premessa 9; Abbreviazioni bibliografiche 11; Sigle 13; Note alla traduzione armena del « De Interpretatione » 15; La traduzione armena del « De Mundo » pseudo-aristotelico 39-122.

"L’obiettivo circoscritto di questa ricerca è lo studio dell’uso delle traduzioni in armeno classico di Aristotele in apparato ad edizioni critiche dell’originale greco: sono state prese in esame rispettivamente l’edizione del De Mundo pseudo-aristotelico di W.L. Lorimer (1932) e quella del De Interpretatione di L. Minio-Paluello (1949), mentre non si è studiata in questo senso quella delle Categoriae, dello stesso M.-P., che compare nel medesimo volume oxoniense.

Sono confluite in questo booklet schede di lettura già pubblicate a parte, e precisamente: A. T., Aristotele, De Interpretatione: alcune note marginali alla versione armena, BIFG [Bollettino dell'Istituto di Filologia Greca] 2 (1975), 183-90."

Todd, Robert B. 1976. "Alexander of Aphrodisias on De Interpretatione 16a 26-29." Hermes no. 104:140–146.

Van den Berg, Robert M. 2008. Proclus' Commentary on the Cratylus in Context. Ancient Theories of Language and Naming. Brill: Leiden.

Chapter One. Plato’s Cratylus And Aristotle’s De Interpretatione: Setting The Scene, pp. 1-29.

———. 2016. "Smoothing over the differences : Proclus and Ammonius on Plato's «Cratylus» and Aristotle's «De interpretatione»." In Aristotle Re-Interpreted: New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators, edited by Sorabji, Richard, 353–365. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

Verbeke, Gérard. 1991. "Interprétation et langage dans la tradition aristotélicienne." In Historia philosophiae Medii Aevi. Studien zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, edited by Mojsisch, Burkhard and Pluta, Olaf, 1029–1045. Amsterdam: R. Grüner.

"A la lumière des analyses qui précèdent, qu'en est-il maintenant du titre peri hermeneias? Ce titre correspond-il au contenu de l'ouvrage?

La question posée ne vise pas directement l'authenticité Aristotélicienne de la formule: il est vrai cependant, qu'un titre qui ne traduirait pas bien le contenu du traité, aurait peu de chances d'avoir été rédigé par le Stagirite. Par contre, il est probable que l'ouvrage ait reçu un certain titre de la part de son auteur et si le titre traditionnel correspond au contenu de l'écrit, il peut très bien remonter à l'auteur lui-même. Quoi qu'il en soit de la question d'authenticité, nous croyons pouvoir conclure que le titre donné recouvre bien le contenu du traité, dont le sujet principal est l'énonciation catégorique et ses composants. En se basant sur les analyses de Boèce et d'Ammonius, on peut dire que tous ces éléments correspondent à l'idée d'interprétation telle qu'elle est expliquée dans le traité:

1. L'énonciation y est conçue comme l'interprétation d'un contenu de pensée. Toutefois si le langage se rapporte directement à un objet pensé, il se réfère indirectement au réel: il en résulte que le discours énonciatif est aussi une interprétation de la réalité. Il l'est à un double niveau: le contenu particulier de chaque énonciation se rapporte à un sujet déterminé du monde et en exprime certaines caractéristiques; on peut donc le considérer comme un acte d'interprétation. Par ailleurs, il y a la structure même du jugement, qui, elle aussi, est une interprétation à un niveau plus fondamental de la physionomie du réel.

2. Les noms et les verbes constituent à leur tour un acte d'interprétation. Selon Aristote, la signification des mots est conventionnelle: elle est le résultat de la vie en communauté, où les hommes sont amenés à se mettre d'accord sur des notions fondamentales de la vie morale et sociale. Ammonius croit que le sens des mots n'est pas purement artificiel, mais qu'il est adapté à la nature des choses. Quoi qu'il en soit, le fait d'appliquer au réel des noms et des verbes est un acte d'interprétation. Exprimer le réel dans les catégories du langage implique toujours un acte interprétatif.

La doctrine aristotélicienne sur la nature du langage justifie donc le titre de peri hermeneias.".

Viano, Cristina. 2009. "Aristote contre !es astrologues. Olympiodore sur le De interpretatione, chap. 9." In Interpréter le De Interpretatione, edited by Husson, Suzanne, 69–88. Paris: Vrin.

White, Michael J. 1983. "Time and Determinism in the Hellenistic Philosophical Schools." Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie no. 65:40–62.