Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 22 items for

  • Author or Editor: Costantino Marmo x
  • Search level: All x
Clear All
In: Logic and Language in the Middle Ages
In: Logic and Language in the Middle Ages

While the logical works of Aristotle had tradition of commentary in the universities of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Aristotle’s Rhetoric was an almost unknown work when Giles of Rome, a young augustinian monk, was asked to write a commentary on it (1272-73). Later he also commented on Sophistical Refutations and Posterior Analytics; but while in these latter cases Giles could rely on previous models and a number of commentaries on these texts, in the case of Aristotle’s Rhetoric he had almost no tools that could help him in the very difficult task of explaining and discussing this text. The method of his commentary, as in all of his Aristotelian commentaries, conforms to the genre of the literal commentary (sententia): he first proposes a division of the text (diuisio textus), which shows its logical structure; he then proceeds to the literal explanation of the text (expositio litterae); finally, he often adds discussions of specific problems, calling them notabilia (short annotations) or declarationes (shorter or longer digressions or examinations of specific problems). These declarationes are occur mainly in the commentary of the first and second Books of Aristotle’s Rhetoric.

In this paper, I show some examples of the kind of work Giles carried out on the text of Aristotle’s Latin translation (made by William de Moerbeke a few years before – about 1269). Giles uses three basic operations for explaining the meaning of the text: terminological elucidation ; clarification of the syntax (through simple transposition or more often by reorganizing whole phrases); correction of the text (often through a comparison with other translations and sometimes with other copies of William’s translation).

In: A Companion to Giles of Rome
In: Vivarium

While the logical works of Aristotle had tradition of commentary in the universities of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Aristotle’s Rhetoric was an almost unknown work when Giles of Rome, a young augustinian monk, was asked to write a commentary on it (1272-73). Later he also commented on Sophistical Refutations and Posterior Analytics; but while in these latter cases Giles could rely on previous models and a number of commentaries on these texts, in the case of Aristotle’s Rhetoric he had almost no tools that could help him in the very difficult task of explaining and discussing this text. The method of his commentary, as in all of his Aristotelian commentaries, conforms to the genre of the literal commentary (sententia): he first proposes a division of the text (diuisio textus), which shows its logical structure; he then proceeds to the literal explanation of the text (expositio litterae); finally, he often adds discussions of specific problems, calling them notabilia (short annotations) or declarationes (shorter or longer digressions or examinations of specific problems). These declarationes are occur mainly in the commentary of the first and second Books of Aristotle’s Rhetoric.

In this paper, I show some examples of the kind of work Giles carried out on the text of Aristotle’s Latin translation (made by William de Moerbeke a few years before – about 1269). Giles uses three basic operations for explaining the meaning of the text: terminological elucidation ; clarification of the syntax (through simple transposition or more often by reorganizing whole phrases); correction of the text (often through a comparison with other translations and sometimes with other copies of William’s translation).

In: Medieval Supposition Theory Revisited
In: Medieval Supposition Theory Revisited

Abstract

In his commentaries on Porphyry and Aristotle’s Organon (Categories, Peri hermeneias, Sophistici elenchi, and Topics) and in his other works, John Duns Scotus shows his knowledge of both the modistic theory of language and the theory of supposition. My contribution sheds some light on the relationship between Scotus’ philosophy of language and the theory of supposition, collecting and commenting on all the passages in which he makes use of it or discusses some theoretical points. I take into special account the almost unknown commentary on the Topics, which is preserved in a Vatican manuscript.

In: Vivarium
In the Posterior Analytics Aristotle contrasts demonstrations with syllogisms through signs. In the Prior Analytics he defines a sign as a demonstrative premise. One is thus led to ask: is a sign a demonstration?
This book reconstructs the history of the notion of “demonstration through signs” from roughly the third through to the thirteenth century. It examines the work of Aristotle’s Greek, Arabic, and Latin commentators, both within and outside the tradition of the Posterior Analytics.