The Earliest Syriac Translation of Aristotle's Categories: Text, Translation and Commentary (Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus)
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
Aristotle s logic first became known in the Middle East through the medium of the Syriac language at a time prior to the rise of classical Arabic philosophy. The present volume makes available for the first time the earliest Syriac translation (sixth century AD) of the Categories, which is here edited together with an English translation, analytical commentary, glossaries and indices. The availability of such an important early work will enable the beginnings of the Semitic Aristotelian tradition to be studied more comprehensively. This will open the way to a better understanding of both the study of Aristotelian logic in Syriac and also of the significance of the Syriac tradition for the genesis and rise of Arabic logic."
similar revision process, the opposite is found, with an early δύναμαι / ܐequivalency being revised in the seventh century to ܐ.44 αἴσθησις / αἰσθητός / ἐπιστητός (6b34-6,7b35,7b36) These terms caused some confusion for A, who renders passive terms with active ones. However, he learns as he proceeds, and the equivalents later used by J and G are already found in A. ——— 44 Brock, Pseudo-Nonnos, 40. TRANSLATION TECHNIQUES 57 ἀνάγκη / ἀναγκαῖος (12b32,3) Note the way in which A does not
and his answers give the lie to those who suggest that these things were considered important to the main protagonists. Similarly, when one reads John of Caesarea’s attempt at writing syllogisms in order to refute Manichaeaism,16 it does not take one long to realize that John had never read the Prior Analytics or even a summary of them. And both Severus and John are native Greek authors, not in need of translations. The deployment of Aristotelian logic within theological debate in the Greek
.ܐ ـ ܕܐ ـ ـ .ܐ ܕ ܡ ܗ ܬ .ܘ ܬ ܡ ܐ ܐ . ܕܕ ـ ـ ܕܘ ـ ـ ܬ ܕ ـ ܬ ܐ ܕ ̣ـ ܕ ـ ܕ ـ ܐ ـ̇ ܕܐ ـ ܬ ـ ـ ܕ ̇. ـ ܬ ـ ܕ ܢ. ـ ܐ ܘ . ܕܘ ̣ ̈ .ܕ ـ ܕـ ܗܝ ܕ ܬ ܬ ܕܐ ـ ܗ ـ ̈ ـ. ܐ ـ ـ ̣ .ܕ ̈ـ ܕܐܦ ـ ـ ܕ ـ ̈ـ ܕ | . ـ ـ ܕ ـ ܐ .܀ ـ ܘ ܬ ܕ ܕ ـ ܐ ـ ܕܬ ܬ ـ ـ ـ ܕܬ ܬ ـ ܐ ̈ ـ .ـ ̈ ܕܬ .ܐ ܐ ܘܗܝ .ܘܐ ܐ ̣ـ .ܘ ـ ܬ ـ ̈ ـ ܐܘ ܬ ـ ـ ܡ ܕ ـ ܙ ـ ܐ ܐ ܙ .ܘ ܬ ܐ ܘ
) ̇ܗܘ ܕappears to mean τὸ ὑποκείμενον (the subject)—an expression imitated in the later translators.18 The translation of καθ’ ὑποκειμένου τινός (in respect of some subject) is thus rightly ( ܕ ܡ ܕor ܡ ܕ , or ̇ܗܘ )ܕ. However, its contrasting expression ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ (in a sub(placed in something).19 See also e.g. ject) is rendered asܒ ܡ 1b8 [73va] where ἡ τὶς γραμματικὴ τῶν ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ ἐστίν (the particular knowledge-of-grammar is one of the things in a subject) becomes ̇ ܒ ܡ ܐ
in J we find ܬܐ ܐfor ποιόν (1b26, cf. 8a5-6), which would generally be reserved for ποιότης. J’s ܐ ܐ ܐܘ ܐ ܡ ܕܥ (3b21, see above) is really no better than A’s attempt at the same—again an expositor is required to make sense of the calque. G uses ܐ ܐin this passage at first, similarly treating the word as an indirect interrogative (3b15,18). However, at 3b19 and 3b20, ποιὸν is rendered as ̇ܗܝ ܕܐ ܐ, with the second of these marginally glossed ܐ. This new expression is certainly an