No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2021
The anonymous Armenian commentary was transmitted together with the Armenian translation of Aristotle's Peri Hermeneias (sixth century or earlier). It was composed in the Hellenizing style and commonly associated with the figure of David the Invincible, a philosopher of the Neoplatonic School of Alexandria. This article presents a general structural analysis of the commentary followed by a comparative study and translation of its first chapter. It argues that the commentary was indeed written in the tradition of late antique Greek commentaries but was probably not associated with late Neoplatonism. The Armenian commentary shares many common features with Ammonius’ commentary, but also departs from it on many crucial aspects. From a philosophical standpoint, it has much more in common with Boethius’ and Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentaries than with those of the Neoplatonic School of Alexandria, thus suggesting an early writing date.
I would like to thank Katerina Ierodiakonou for allowing me to discuss the Armenian commentary in her Master's seminar at the University of Geneva, and Valentina Calzolari for having organized an impromptu Armenian class at the same University; Aram Topchyan, for having sent me his edition; Adrian Pirtea, for sharing valuable information about the Syriac translation made by George of the Arabs; Marco Della Motta, for proofreading this article; and Agnès Ouzounian, for agreeing to work with me on this difficult text during the summer session of 2019 at the ABELAO (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium).
1 Conybeare, F.C., Anecdota Oxoniensia. A Collation with the Ancient Armenian Versions of the Greek Text of Aristotle's Categories and De Interpretatione (Oxford, 1892), vGoogle Scholar.
2 The Armenian translation of Aristotle's Peri Hermeneias and its commentary belong to the second group of the Hellenizing translations, which precedes the second decade of sixth century (Arevsatyan) or the first half of the seventh century (Manandean): Calzolari, V., ‘David et la tradition arménienne’, in ead. and Barnes, J. (edd.), L’œuvre de David l'Invincible, Commentaria in Aristotelem Armeniaca – Davidis Opera (Leiden and Boston, 2009), 16–20Google Scholar; Contin, B., David l'Arménien et l’école d'Alexandrie. Recherches sur le vocabulaire épistémologique de la tradition textuelle grecque et arménienne (Rome, 2017)Google Scholar; Topchyan, A., David the Invincible, Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics (Leiden, 2010), 4–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The anonymous Syriac translation of Aristotle's Peri Hermeneias has been attributed to Proba (sixth century) in one manuscript: Hugonnard-Roche, H., La logique d'Aristote du grec au syriaque (Paris, 2004), 11, 58, 60Google Scholar.
3 Conybeare (n. 1), v. Conybeare wrongly thought that the commentary on Aristotle's Peri Hermeneias was incomplete (xxv–xxvii).
4 Mahé, J.-P., ‘Amelaxos’, in Goulet, R. (ed.), DPhA, vol. 1 (Paris, 1989), 160Google Scholar.
5 A. Topchyan, Յաղագս մեկնութեան` Պերիարմենիաս, Մեկնութիւն Ստորոգութեանցն Արիստոտէլի, Մատենագիրք հայոց, ԺԷ հատոր, ԺԱ դար, Երևան, 2016, Յաւելուած, էջ 787–979.
6 It may also have originated with Proclus in Athens: Tarán, L., Anonymous Commentary on Aristotle's De interpretatione (Codex Parisinus Graecus 2064) (Meisenheim am Glan, 1978), xviGoogle Scholar. On the form of Proba's commentary, see Hugonnard-Roche (n. 2), 61.
7 Hadot, I., ‘Les introductions aux commentaires exégétiques chez les auteurs néoplatoniciens et les auteurs chrétiens’, in Tardieu, M. (ed.), Les règles de l'interprétation (Paris, 1987), 105Google Scholar. Introductions to Aristotle's Categories would have an additional ten points.
8 Hugonnard-Roche (n. 2), 278.
9 More precisely, if the commentary was originally written in Greek, its terminus post quem would be the second or third century (because of the mention of Alexander of Aphrodisias). However, if it was originally composed in Armenian, its terminus post quem would rather be the fifth century as the Armenian alphabet was only developed around 405 by Mesrop Mashtots. The commentary, be it originally written in Greek or in Armenian, could not have been composed after the thirteenth century (terminus ante quem), the date of the oldest manuscript containing it.
10 Fragments of these lost commentaries are found in other commentators. Theophrastus (fourth or third century b.c.) and Proclus (fifth century) may also have written a commentary on Aristotle's Peri Hermeneias: Bonelli, M., ‘Alexandre d'Aphrodise et le De Interpretatione’, in Husson, S. (ed.), Interpréter le De Interpretatione (Paris, 2009), 51–4Google Scholar.
11 Short commentaries or introductions written during that period have also survived in Syriac, for instance a short ‘explanation’ from Paul the Persian (sixth century) and a brief introduction from George of the Arabs (seventh or eighth century). Only the text of Paul the Persian has been edited and translated: Hugonnard-Roche, H., ‘Sur la lecture tardo-antique du Peri Hermeneias d'Aristote: Paul le Perse et la tradition d'Ammonius’, Studia graeco-arabica 3 (2013), 37–104Google Scholar. Numerous Arabic and Byzantine commentaries were also written on Aristotle's Peri Hermeneias: Zimmermann, F.W., Al-Farabi's Commentary and Short Treatise on Aristotle's De Interpretatione (Oxford, 1981), lxviii–clGoogle Scholar; Benmakhlouf, A. and Diebler, S., Averroès Commentaire moyen sur le De Interpretatione (Paris, 2000), 16–39Google Scholar; Ierodiakonou, K., ‘The Byzantine reception of Aristotle's theory of meaning’, Methodos 19 (2019), 2–4Google Scholar.
12 The following comparative analysis will focus predominantly on the commentaries written by Ammonius, Stephanus and Boethius. The anonymous Greek commentary edited by L. Tarán will not be used since it only starts at chapter 2. As for Proba's commentary, a complete edition (which takes into account all the different manuscripts, including Mingana syr. 606) is still needed. I use the following editions and translations: A. Busse, Ammonius in Aristotelis de interpretatione commentarius (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 4.5) (Berlin, 1897), 1–272; Blank, D.L., Ammonius: On Aristotle On Interpretation 1–8 (London, 2013)Google Scholar; Meiser, K., Anicii Manlii Severini Boetii Commentarii in librum Aristotelis, Peri hermeneias (Leipzig, 1877–80)Google Scholar; Smith, A., Boethius: On Aristotle On Interpretation 1–3 (London, 2014)Google Scholar; Hayduck, M., Stephani in librum Aristotelis de interpretatione commentarium (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 18.3) (Berlin, 1885), 1–68Google Scholar; Charlton, W., Stephanus: On Aristotle On Interpretation (London, 2014)Google Scholar.
13 See the Appendix at the end of this article for the complete translation, in which I have used the Greek equivalent of Armenian terms whenever possible. The translation is presented according to a three-point system: the first number refers to the chapter, the second to the section and the third to the paragraph (thus 1.1.2 refers to the second paragraph of the first section of chapter 1).
14 In manuscripts, the Armenian translation and commentary of Aristotle's Peri Hermeneias have been transmitted together with an Armenian translation and commentary of Aristotle's Categories, which was translated into Russian by S. Arevšatyan in 1961. Two other commentaries on the Categories were also transmitted in Armenian: 1) an Armenian version of David's (or Elias’) commentary, originally written in Greek; 2) an anonymous commentary preserved in an incomplete form. Neither of these texts has been translated into English or into any other modern languages. On the question, see Calzolari, V., ‘The reception and the transmission of the Greek cultural heritage in Armenia: the Armenian translations of the Greek Neoplatonic works’, in Gazzano, F., Pagani, L. and Traina, G. (edd.), Greek Texts and Armenian Traditions (Berlin, 2016), 54–9Google Scholar; M.E. Shirinian, ‘The Armenian version of David the Invincible's Commentary on Aristotle's Categories’, in V. Calzolari et J. Barnes, L’œuvre de David l'Invincible et la transmission de la pensée grecque dans la tradition arménienne et syriaque (Leiden, 2009), 89–102.
15 More precisely, the section about ‘discourse (λόγος) and its parts’ would correspond to chapters 1 to 3 (and, perhaps, to the beginning of chapter 4) (16a1–16b25) and the section about ‘propositions’ (πρότασις) to chapter 4 (16b26–end).
16 Contrary to Ammonius: Brunschwig, J., ‘Le chapitre 1 du De Interpretatione: Aristote, Ammonius et nous’, Laval théologique et philosophique 64 (2008), 35–87, at 40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 Boethius also used θέσθαι in the sense ‘to define’ but did not present any other definitions (14,1–2).
18 This is the canonical list: Dionysius Thrax, Ars grammatica 23,1–3 and Apollonius Dyscolus, De constructione 15,6–27,16. Boethius and Proba do not discuss the article (ἄρθρον) in their commentary, as it does not exist in Latin or Syriac. Strangely, the Commentator too does not mention the article in this section of the commentary, even though it is a grammatical component of the Armenian language.
19 Shiel, J., ‘Boethius’ commentaries on Aristotle’, in Sorabji, R. (ed.), Aristotle Transformed (Ithaca, NY, 1990), 377–402, at 357Google Scholar.
20 On Ammonius’ take on adverbs, see J. Barnes, ‘Ammonius and adverbs’, in H. Blumenthal and H. Robinson (edd.), Aristotle and the Later Tradition (Oxford, 1991), 145–63.
21 S. Ebbesen, ‘Porphyry's legacy to logic: a reconstruction’, in R. Sorabji (ed.), Aristotle Transformed (Ithaca, NY, 1990), 151–86, at 157. See also Blank (n. 12), 140. However, Boethius did not use the same metaphor in his discussion of the first chapter of Aristotle's Peri Hermeneias (second commentary).
22 Blank (n. 12), 140.
23 More precisely, Alexander reads the third ΤΑΥΤΑ as ταὐτά: ‘what the same [affections] are likenesses of …’. The Armenian reads it as a demonstrative (‘that of which these [ταῦτα] are likenesses …’), but ‘these’ (ταῦτα) refers to ‘the same (ταὐτά) affections of the soul’, hence the interpretation of Alexander.
24 It is possible that πρώτως appeared in manuscripts as a consequence of Ammonius’ interpretation: E. Montanari, La sezione linguistica del Peri Hermeneias di Aristotele (Florence, 1984), 126–32.
25 Thus J. Pépin, ‘Sumbola, sêmeia, homoiômata: à propos de De Interpretatione I, 16a3–8 et Politique VIII 5, 1340a6–39’, in J. Wiesner (ed.), Aristoteles. Werk und Wirkung (Berlin, 1985), 35, on the grounds that Boethius did not discuss other significations in Aspasius, Herminus, Alexander or Porphyry.
26 C.W.A. Whitaker, Aristotle's De Interpretatione. Contradiction and Dialectic (Oxford, 1996), 13–15.
27 Brunschwig (n. 16), 77–8.
28 In his own commentary on 16a12–13, Stephanus follows Ammonius almost word for word (6,23–5).
29 47,13–14: ‘Diuisio igitur quaedam negatio est, coniunctio adfirmatio. Compositi autem est coniunctique diuisio’. On the idea that negations are also combinations, see Whitaker (n. 26), 29.
30 In fact, definitions 1 and 3 seem contradictory. According to definition 1, ἁπλῶς expresses the present, but the present is not a time but ‘a small [period of time], namely the beginning or the end of a period’ (1.4.2). As for definition 3, ἁπλῶς expresses the present, which in turn expresses time (for a verb is ‘what additionally signifies time’ [16b6]). However, it is possible that the first definition refers to a ‘timeless or momentary present’ (ἀκαριαῖος), whereas the third refers to the ‘extended present’ (ἐν πλάτει) (see Ammonius, in De Interpr. 51,17–25). Blank ([n. 12], 152) hypothesizes that an objection was raised in Ammonius’ time about Aristotle's use of the expression ὁ παρὼν χρόνος, prompting him to distinguish between these two types of present in his commentary of chapter 3. The Commentator did not consider it necessary to make such a distinction in chapter 1.
31 Unfortunately, the Commentator's remark is vague and cannot be clearly understood with the aid of the surrounding text.
32 Such a resemblance is even stronger when we compare the Armenian commentary with those in Arabic. For instance, in his commentary of chapter 1, Al-Farabi does not once ask why Aristotle disposed the elements of 16a1–2 in a different order than in the rest of the text or why Aristotle mentioned only the noun and the verb but not the other parts of the sentence. Al-Farabi also does not use the metaphor of the ship, nor does he attempt to define Πρῶτον δεῖ θέσθαι. See Zimmermann (n. 11), 10–15.
33 My translation frequently departs from that of Conybeare (n. 1), xv–xvii (a translation of the first section of chapter 1), since he did not have access to the same edition of the text.
34 The use of the second-person singular, also observable in subsequent chapters, could suggest that the Armenian commentary was intended for a particular student or reader.
35 The expression ‘the Philosopher’ was used not only by Neoplatonists but also by Aristotelian commentators, for instance Alexander of Aphrodisias in Mixt. 228.10. See R. Chiaradonna, M. Rashed and D. Sedley, ‘A rediscovered Categories commentary: Porphyry (?) with fragments of Boethus’, in R. Sorabji (ed.), Aristotle Re-Interpreted (London, 2016), 231–62, at 235 n. 14.
36 I.e. grammar.
37 The Armenian translator reads an additional ταὐτά.
38 MSS B, D, E and V have also ταῦτα (Topchyan [n. 5], 10).
39 The Armenian word նշանակ is used indifferently to translate σύμβολον and σημεῖον.
40 Or, literally: ‘Having said once again concerning signs/symbols that they are really of things, thoughts or vocal sounds …’
41 Ι.e. vocal sounds.
42 The Armenian translation does not have ὁτὲ μὲν … ὁτὲ δέ. The last part of the sentence (ᾧ ἀνάγκη τούτων ὑπάρχειν θάτερον) is translated in an overtly literal way and is incomprehensible in Armenian without the aid of Greek.
43 Like Ammonius, but contrary to Stephanus and Boethius, the Armenian translator inverts ‘truth’ and ‘falsehood’.
44 Ι.e. true or false.
45 To talk about ‘thoughts’, the Commentator previously used a specific word: իմացումն (νόημα or νόησις). He uses here a different term: խորհուրդ (λογισμός, διαλογισμός, νόημα, ἔννοια, βουλή or φρόνημα). As 1.3.6 shows, the idea is however the same: ‘Just as negation is in the vocal sound, so too division is in the mind (խորհուրդ). (…) Just as in the vocal sound affirmation or negation necessarily reveals truth and falsehood, so too in thought (իմացումն) combination and division necessarily reveal truth or falsehood.’ I have translated the term խորհուրդ by ‘notion’ and the expression ըն խորհրդումն by ‘in the mind’.
46 I.e. combination and division.
47 The Armenian verb corresponds to φαίνει and not to ἔοικε.
48 Contrary to Boethius, but similarly to Ammonius, the Armenian translator does not invert ‘falsehood’ and ‘truth’.
49 Cf. Arist. Cat. 1a17–18, 2a8–10, 13b10–13.
50 Cf. Arist. Int. 16b17–18.
51 Passage unknown, perhaps Metaph. E4 or Θ10. None of the passages of Aristotle's Metaphysics containing the term φωνή is related to the present discussion.
52 Reading ունիցի (MSS B and E).
53 The sense of this sentence is uncertain. It contains many variants and could also be translated in the following manner: ‘Indeed, it is impossible that things are unsettled by what is also theirs (առ որ եւ իցէ սոցա): at all times, they have (ունին) the one that is unmoved, ordaining this by themselves.’