Il tuo browser non supporta JavaScript!

Die Pinakes des Andronikos im Licht der Vorrede in der Aristoteles-Schrift des Ptolemaios

digital Die Pinakes des Andronikos im Licht der Vorrede in der Aristoteles-Schrift des Ptolemaios
Articolo
rivista AEVUM
fascicolo AEVUM - 2015 - 1
titolo Die Pinakes des Andronikos im Licht der Vorrede in der Aristoteles-Schrift des Ptolemaios
autore
editore Vita e Pensiero
formato Articolo | Pdf
online da 04-2015
issn 0001-9593 (stampa) | 1827-787X (digitale)
€ 6,00

Ebook in formato Pdf leggibile su questi device:

According to Plutarch, Andronicus of Rhodes (1st century B.C.) drew up Pinakes of the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus on the basis of books from their personal library which had been hidden away in Skepsis, centuries later brought to Rome by Sulla, where finally copies made by Tyrannio came into the hands of Andronicus. Andronicus’ Pinakes are lost. Our sources only provide scant information about them. Interestingly they are mentioned in a treatise on Aristotle written by a certain Ptolemy, the Greek original of which is also lost, but which is preserved in several Arabic sources. Most importantly, this treatise contains a catalogue of Aristotle’s writings, and additionally in one source manuscript (Ayasofya 4833) Ptolemy’s introduction to his treatise in which he explains its content and structure. Ptolemy’s Aristotelian Pinax is one of the three extant ancient lists of Aristotle’s writings, its structure and titels closely resembling Aristotle’s corpus as it is currently known. Because Ptolemy mentions Andronicus’ Pinakes in his list, the general assumption was and still is that Ptolemy more or less copied his list from Andronicus, and that therefore Andronicus’ lost work on Aristotle can be reconstructed directly from Ptolemy. However, Ptolemy’s introduction – contained only in Ayasofya 4833 – (which, although discovered around the middle of the last century, still is rarely taken into account) clearly excludes this hypothesis, as in it Ptolemy informs us about fundamental differences between Andronicus’ approach and his own. Currently there are three widely diverging translations of this introduction which – specifically in four passages – have important consequences concerning the relationship between Ptolemy and Andronicus. This article aims to offer a new interpretation of the relevant passages on the basis of a translation from a new transcript of the Arabic original text by E. Wakelnig.