Dans cet article, l'auteur fait état de nouvelles données à propos de trois traités attribués a Alexandre d'Aphrodise en arabe et dont on pensait qu'ils n'avaient pas de correspondant grec. II montre que le premier (D.8a) est une version adaptée – selon les normes du “cercle d'al-Kindi’ – deQuaestioI 21, à côte de la traduction plus tardive et plus exacte de cette mêmeQuaestiodue à Abù ‘Uṭmān al-Dimašqī (m. 900). II montre que les deux autres traités (D.9 et D.16), en revanche, (...) ne sont pas d'Alexandre d'Aphrodise, mais qu'il s'agit de versions adaptées – toujours selon les normes du “cercle d'al-Kindi” – de passages duDe Aeternitate mundi contra Proclumde Jean Philopon, empruntés respectivement à IV, 4–6 et IX, 11. On savait que cet ouvrage fut traduit en arabe. Mais, hormis quelques courts fragments dans al-Bīrūnī (m. 1048), c'est, semble-t-il, la première fois que l'on en met au jour des extraits adaptés de cette importance. Des jalons sont posés en vue de répondre à la question de la situation historique de l'epitomateur. Dans l'Appendice II, un autre traité attribué à Alexandre (D.27g) apparaît – provisoirement – comme un texte composite mêlant des éléments issus de Philopon et d'autres issus des textes néoplatoniciens en arabe. Enfin dans l'Appendice III, sont situées la manière dont Miskawayh (m. 1030) utilise D.16, et celle dont ‘Abdallaṭīf al-Baġdādī (m. 1231) utilise D.27g. (shrink)

Some of the short pieces attributed in various Arabic manuscripts to Alexander of Aphrodisias in fact derive from Proclus's Elements of Theology. Twenty such pieces were published in 1973 by G. Endress, who traced the unnamed translator to the circle of Kindi. Another such piece is here identified, published, and assigned to the same translator. Its beginning and end seem to have been revised by a later transmitter. Section II of the article adduces a parallel case where the original Arabic (...) version still exists. Section III surveys a number of related pieces that would also appear to have been changed in transmission. Section IV argues that most if not all were once united in a single collection of Proclus and Alexander. Section V argues that since certain changes of detail were evidently made during or soon after translation, the general arrangement of the Kindi-circle Alexander, as of the Kindi-circle Liber de Causis and the Kindi-circle, is also likely to be peculiar to the Arabic tradition. The text from which Proclus Arabus was first translated need not have differed substantially from the transmitted Greek. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:New Light from Arabic Sources on Galen and the Fourth Figure of the Syllogism NICHOLAS RESCHER The Problem of the Origin of the Fourth Figure FLYING IN THE FACE of the long-standing tradition--going back in Europe to Renaissance times--which credits Galen of Pergamon with the origination of the fourth syllogistic figure, recent authorities have almost to a man evinced doubt about Galen's claim to this innovation. Heinrieh Scholz speaks (...) of "the Galenian syllogistic figure which has been attributed to him, probably wrongly." i j. W. Stakelum concludes his careful discussion of the matter with the categorical assertion that "Galen did not teach the fourth figure." ~ I. M. Bochenski--following Lukasiewicz (see below)--says that the fourth figure "was only ascribed to Galen by a misunderstanding." : William Kneale (also following Lukasiewicz) writes that "it is easy to see how misunderstanding.., by some Arabian philosopher... could have given rise to the tradition that Galen added a fourth figure to Aristotle's syllogistic theory." 4 The currently received account of the matter is that of Jan Lukasiewicz who, in his book on Aristotle's Syllogistic (1951; 2d ed., 1957), presents the known reports about Galen and the fourth figure as follows (I list them in the order in which they came to light) : 1) Several passages in Averroes' (d. 1198) Middle Commentary on Prior Analytics credit Galen with introducing a fourth figure (ad Anal. Pr. I, 5; I, 8; I, 23). These passages, known in Europe through a Renaissance Latin translation of a Hebrew version, provided the basis upon which Zabarella in his work, De Quarta Syllogismorum Figura (in his Opera [Leiden: 1587], pp. 41-53), popularized the "Galenian figure" in European logic. 2) In 1844 Minoides Mynas published in the Preface to his edition of Galen's EisagSg~ dialektik~ an anonymous Greek fragment (late, perhaps 6th century) which states that certain "later scholars" transformed the indirect moods of the first figure added by Theophrastus and Eudeffms into a new fourth figure, citing Galen as the originator of this doctrine.~ 1Abriss der Geschichte der Logik (Miinster: 1931), trans, into English by K. F. Leidecker, ConciseHistory of Logic (NewYork: 1961);p. 38ofthe Englishversion. "Why 'Galenian' Figure?" The New Scholasticism, XVI (1942),289-296. s Formale Logik (Miinchen-Freiburg:1956; 2nd. ed., 1962), trans, into English by Ivo Thomas, A History of Formal Logic (Notre Dame: 1961);p. 142of the Englishversion. Williamand Martha Kneale, The Developmentof Logic (Oxford: 1962),p. 184. Alsoprinted in Karl Kalbfieisch, ~ber Galen s Einleitung in die Logik, 2~. Supplementband der Jahrbi~cherfi~r klassische Philologie (Leipzig:1897), p. 707. This datum casts some 28 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 3) A Greek fragment was found around 1858 by Karl Prantl in a logical work of the Byzantine scholar Ioannes Italus (llth century) which says that Galen taught the existence of a fourth figure, adding sarcastically that he (Galen) thought thus to appear cleverer than the older logical commentators (presumably Theophrastus and Eudemus are intended), but fell far short.6 4) In 1899 Maximilian Wallies published7 an anonymous Greek scholium (of perhaps the 6th or the 7th century) on Ammonins' commentary on Prior Analytics which states that Galen "says in his Apodictic that there are four figures, because he looks at the compound syllogisms consisting of four terms (i.e., with three premisses )" rather than the simple (three-term, two-premiss) syllogisms of Aristotle. (The scholiast goes on to explain at some length how such compound syllogisms can be sorted into four groups.) It is readily seen that, given these data, two possibilities stand before us: a) Galen did actually invent the traditional fourth figure. Reports (1)-(3) are correct, and the anonymous scholiast of (4) was put on the wrong track by the fact that Galen also said that compound syllogisms of four terms can be classed into four groups. b) Galen did not invent the traditional fourth figure. Only after his time when once the indirect moods of the first figure had--somehow--become systematized into a separate "figure," was this credited to Galen by a mistake along the lines described by the anonymous scholiast. Thus (4) alone is right, and (1)-(3) are mistaken. Which of... (shrink)

How do the heavenly bodies physically affect the sublunary world? On this topic, the few fragmentary statements by Aristotle were refined and expanded by his Greek commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias. In the Kind-circle adaptations of Alexander and al-Kind-circle's Alexander was closely followed by al-Kind himself exerted a reciprocal influence on the Arabic Alexander, who was largely the product of his own group of translators. The appendix contains English translations from Arabic of two adapted Alexander's treatises.