Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 12

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Aristoteles
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: spongius a rugana

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2014
|
vol. 137
|
issue 3-4
317-325
EN
The main aim of this article is to identify the origin and meaning of two Latin zoological terms in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus, especially of the word rugana that have remained obscure until present days. Both works employ names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret either semantically or linguistically and whose Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear. Most of them are attached to animals the description of which Thomas claims to be derived from Aristotle. Aristotle’s term σπόγγος, denoting different varieties of sponges, which are found throughout the Mediterranean Sea, reached the Middle Ages not only through Pliny the Elder and classical Latin name spongia, but also via translations of Aristotle into Arabic and then into Latin. Thomas used the Latin version of the Aristotle’s work Historia animalium translated from Arabic by Michael Scotus. Due to phonetical differencies between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified. The sponge is described at Michael Scotus under the name gamen, that probably comes from the Arabic word ghajm, „cloud“, „sea sponge“; it is very likely that the word rugana that we found in medieval encyclopaedias, including those of Czech origin, is the result of deformation of the term gamen and of its connection with the preceding preposition in (misread as ru).
2

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: abareno a kiloka

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2013
|
vol. 136
|
issue 1-2
223-235
EN
The main aim of this article is to identify the origin and meaning of two Latin zoological terms in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus. Both works employ names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret either semantically or linguistically and whose Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear. Most of them are attached to animals the description of which Thomas claims to be derived from Aristotle. Thomas used the Latin translation of the Aristotle’s work Historia animalium translated from Arabic by Michael Scotus. Due to phonetical differencies between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified. Aristotle’s term αθερίνη, denoting a mediterranean fish sand smelt (Atherina hepsetus Linné), appears at Michael Scotus as abereni and abarino, at Thomas of Cantimpré in the form abarenon and at Claretus in the form abareno; Aristotle’s term ακαλήφη, used by Aristotle to describe a sea anemone (probably Actinia equina Linné), appears at Michael Scotus as akaleki, at Thomas of Cantimpré in the form kylok and by Claretus in the form kiloka.
3
Content available remote

Botany as a new field of knowledge in the thirteenth century: on the genesis of the specialized sciences

100%
Yavuz M., Oliva P. H.
Teorie vědy (Theory of Science)
|
2020
|
vol. 42
|
issue 1
51-75
EN
Th e reception of the translations of Aristotelian and pseudo-Aristotelian works at the University of Paris in the thirteenth century promoted a new understanding of the sciences as specialized fi elds of knowledge. Th e huge amount of translations required a new organization of knowledge, which included novel subjects and categories. Among these there is a very special case, namely the pseudo- Aristotelian De plantis, translated from Arabic into Latin and then back into Greek to be re-translated into Latin again. De plantis was included in the new curriculum in Ripoll 109 (1230–1240 BCE), and constituted the main source for botanical studies until the sixteenth century. Th roughout this paper we will explore the reception and impact of De plantis in both the Arabic and the Latin traditions. We aim to show its foundational role in the development of botany as a theoretical discipline within the natural sciences.
CS
Recepce překladů aristotelských (včetně pseudo-aristotelských) textů na Pařížské univerzitě 13. století šířila nové porozumění vědám jakožto specializovaným oblastem poznání. Velké množství překladů vyžadovalo novou reorganizaci vědění, která musela zahrnout nové předměty a kategorie. Mezi těmito překlady můžeme najít velmi specifi cký případ – pseudo- -aristotelský spis De plantis, přeložený z arabštiny do latiny, poté zpět do řečtiny a nakonec znovu přeložený do latiny. De plantis byl zahrnut do nového kurikula v Ripollu 109 (1230–1240 n.l.) a tvořil hlavní pramen pro botanické studie až do 16. století. V tomto článku zkoumáme přijetí a dopad De plantis jak na arabskou, tak na latinskou tradici. Našim cílem je ukázat jeho fundamentální roli ve vývoji botaniky jako nové disciplíny v rámci přírodních věd.
4

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: fele a furion

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2013
|
vol. 136
|
issue 3-4
475-486
EN
The purpose of this article is to identify the origin and meaning of two Latin zoological terms in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus. Both works employ names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret both semantically and linguistically and whose Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear. Most of them are attached to animals the description of which Thomas claims to be derived from Aristotle or Pliny the Elder. Thomas used the Latin translation of the Aristotle’s work Historia animalium translated from Arabic by Michael Scotus. Due to phonetical differencies between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified. Aristotle’s term ai[louro", denoting the wildcat (Felis silvestris Schreber) or the housecat (Felis silvestris cattus Linné), appears at Michael Scotus in the form furoniorum (gen. pl.), at Thomas of Cantimpré in the form furionz and at Claretus as furion; the same animal is also referred by the second analysed term feles, taken by Thomas of Cantimpré from Pliny the Elder’s Naturalis historia; it appears in the work of Claretus in the form fele.
5

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: asalus a achilon

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2016
|
vol. 139
|
issue 1-2
189-205
EN
The main aim of this article is to identify the origin and meaning of two Latin zoological terms in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and the Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus. Both works mention names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret semantically as well as linguistically, and their Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear. Most of them are attached to animals the description of which, according to Thomas, is to be derived from Aristotle. Thomas used the Latin version of the Aristotle’s work Historia animalium, translated from Arabic by Michael Scotus. Due to phonetical differences between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified. Aristotle’s term αισάλων, denoting a species of a bird of prey (not certainly identified), reached the Middle Ages not only through Pliny the Elder and classical Latin name aesalon, which occurs as asalon in Thomas of Cantimpré’s encyclopaedia and as asalus in Claretus’ Glossary, but also via translations of Aristotle into Arabic and then into Latin in the form achilon, which occurs in one manuscript of the National museum in Prague.
6

From the Dictionary of Medieval Latin in Czech Lands: gracocenderius

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2017
|
vol. 140
|
issue 3-4
455-470
EN
The main aim of this article is to identify the origin and meaning of one Latin zoological term transmitted in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and the Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus. Both works employ names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret either semantically or linguistically and whose Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear. Most of them are attached to animals which mediaeval authors became acquainted with through Aristotle. Thomas used the Latin translation of Aristotle’s work Historia animalium translated from Arabic by Michael Scotus. Due to phonetical differences between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified. Aristotle’s term (genitive plural) κορακοειδων from the phrase το των κορακοειδων ορνίθων γένος, „the birds of the raven group“, appears at Michael Scotus as cracocenderon, at Thomas of Cantimpré in the form gracocenderon and at Claretus in the form gracocenderius. The meaning of the name remained hidden to medieval encyclopedists and lexicographers, and illustrators of Thomas’ encyclopaedia and related works were apparently also at a loss as to the looks of the chaste bird: each took a different approach, which resulted in very divergent visual interpretations.
7

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: fatator a fetix

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2012
|
vol. 135
|
issue 3-4
405-413
EN
The main aim of this article is to identify origin and meaning of two Latin names of birds, fatator (probably the blackbird) and fetix (probably the swallow), in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus. Both works employ names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret either semantically or linguistically and whose Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear. Most of them are attached to animals the description of which Thomas claims to be derived from Aristotle. Thomas used the Latin translation from Arabic made by Michael Scotus. Due to phonetical differencies between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified.
8

Ze Slovníku středověké latiny: albirus

100%
Šedinová H.
Listy filologické (Folia philologica)
|
2014
|
vol. 137
|
issue 1-2
111-119
EN
The main aim of this article is to identify the origin and meaning of one Latin zoological term in the works of Thomas of Cantimpré and Czech medieval lexicographer Bartholomaeus de Solencia dictus Claretus. Both works employ names of animals that are extremely difficult to interpret either semantically or linguistically and whose Greek or Latin origin is not immediately clear. Most of them are attached to animals the description of which Thomas claims to be derived from Aristotle. Thomas used the Latin translation of the Aristotle’s work Historia animalium translated from Arabic by Michael Scotus. Due to phonetical differencies between these languages as well as inaccuracies and mistakes in both translations, the text of Aristotle and the forms of the original Greek names were variously modified. Aristotle’s term Ἀχιλλειον (σπόγγος), denoting a fine quality of sponge called the “elephant ear” (Spongia officinalis var. lamella Schulze), appears at Michael Scotus as albuz, at Thomas of Cantimpré in the form of albirez and at Claretus in the form of albirus and albinus.
9
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Między Bliskim Wschodem a Grecją – pieniądz w okresie archaicznym

100%
Jankowska A.
Acta Archaeologica Lodziensia
|
2015
|
vol. 61
7-12
PL
Znaleziska srebrnych skarbów z terenu Lewantu, datowanych na okres między X a VI w. p.n.e. dostarczyły interesującej perspektywy w rozważaniach nad początkami monety greckiej. Przeprowadzone badania metalograficzne wykazały, że przynajmniej jeden ze wspomnianych skarbów został wytworzony ze srebra pochodzącego z Laurion, Sifnos i Chalkidiki. Przybicie stempla na fragmencie metalu o określonej masie, ustanowione około 600 r. p.n.e. w cywilizacyjnym tyglu reprezentowanym przez położone w zachodniej części Azji Mniejszej greckie państwa – miasta i królestwo Lidii, dopełnia ekonomicznego obrazu świata, w którym ważenie metalu było stałą i doskonale poznaną praktyką. Fundamentalna różnica tkwiła jednak w greckich poszukiwaniach nowych form rządzenia i administracji. Pieniądz w postaci monety wypełnił bowiem tak symboliczne jak i funkcjonalne potrzeby polis jako instytucji i jej mieszkańców.
EN
As early as the third millennium BC, silver began to play the role of a privileged commodity and as reserve of value in Egypt and in the kingdoms of the Near East. In the second millennium and increasingly in the first millennium, silver was used not only as a reserve and measure of value but, what is more significant as an instrument of payment. Whether archaeological or textual, the evidence from the Mesopotamian states and from the Levant shows that silver was increasingly used as a monetary instrument at that time. The so-called Hacksilber is found in more than thirty hoards in the Levant in the Iron Age Period. This can partly demonstrate that the fundamental concepts of money were established in the Near East long before the Greeks and the Lydians adapted them and, above all, transformed these into the form of coin, in the 6th century. This great transformation, as well as the vast historical question of the emergence of coinage was directly related to the evolution of institutions bound up with the emergence of the polis.
10
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Erläuterungen zur Habsucht (aneleutheria, illiberalitas) als Laster in Aristotelis de virtutibus libellus von Franz Tidicaeus

80%
Dreikopel T.
Folia Toruniensia
|
2022
|
vol. 22
113-126
DE
Der Beitrag schildert die Erwägungen zur Habsucht als Laster, welche in dem 1609 in Leipzig erschienenen Werk Aristotelis de virtutibus libellus von Franz Tidicaeus, dem zeitgenössischen Professor des Akademischen Gymnasiums in Thorn, veröffentlicht wurden. Das Werk des Thorner Gelehrten enthält eine gründliche und gelehrte Exegese des Beitrags des Aristoteles Über die Tugenden und Laster. Der Vergleich des uns interessierenden Abschnittes des Kommentars mit dem Inhalt von drei ethischen Traktaten des Aristoteles lässt keinen Zweifel daran, dass die Erläuterungen Tidicaeus’ über das genannte Laster die Morallehre des griechischen Vorgängers widerspiegeln und als Ausgangspunkt und zugleich das grundlegende Ziel seiner Erwägungen gelten.
EN
The aim of this study is to present the reflections on greed as a moral flaw, which were included in the Aristotelis de virtutibus libellus of Franciscus Tidicaeus, then professor of the Academic Gymnasium in Toruń, published in 1609 in Leipzig. The work of the Toruń scholar contains an insightful and erudite exegesis of the essay On Virtues and Vices, preserved under the name of Aristotle. A comparison of the part of commentary we are interested in with the material contained in Aristotle’s three ethical treatises leaves no doubt that Tidicaeus’ remarks on this flaw reflect the moral teaching of his predecessor, constituting the starting point and at the same time the main goal of his arguments.
PL
Celem niniejszego opracowania jest przedstawienie rozważań na temat chciwości jako wady moralnej, które znalazły się w opublikowanym w roku 1609 w Lipsku Aristotelis de virtutibus libellus Franciszka Tidicaeusa, ówczesnego profesora Gimnazjum Akademickiego w Toruniu. Dzieło toruńskiego uczonego zawiera wnikliwą i pełną erudycji egzegezę zachowanej pod imieniem Arystotelesa rozprawki O cnotach i wadach. Porównanie interesującej nas partii komentarza z materiałem zawartym w trzech traktatach etycznych Arystotelesa nie pozostawia wątpliwości, że uwagi Tidicaeusa na temat wspomnianej wady odzwierciedlają naukę moralną greckiego poprzednika, stanowiąc punkt wyjścia, a zarazem zasadniczy cel prowadzonych przezeń wywodów.
11
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Platon i Arystoteles w świetle badań nad kulturą indoeuropejską

61%
Kwietniewska M.
Kultura i Wartości
|
2020
|
issue 29
DE
Gegenwärtig sind wir daran gewöhnt, den Wert der Kulturerzeugnisse nach der Originalität und Innovation ihrer Schöpfer zu messen. Vor diesem Hintergrund erscheint der Standpunkt des italienischen Forschers der antiken Philosophie, Giovanni Reale, als ein Einzelfall. Indem er die Größe von Aristoteles hochschätzt, sieht er in ihm vor allem einen Philosophen, der das Werk Platons treu fortsetzt. Obwohl Reale zahlreiche wichtige Argumente für seine These anführt, verstößt sein Standpunkt gegen die Eindrücke der meisten Leser der beiden Philosophen und hält nicht der Kritik stand, insbesondere was die Perspektive betrifft, die Reale in seiner Forschungsarbeit nicht berücksichtigte. Meine Polemik mit der These des italienischen Historikers zielt darauf, nachzuweisen, dass der Unterschied zwischen Platon und Aristoteles auf das Meritum, den Kern ihrer ontologischen Anschauungen zurückgreift. Platon war der Tradition der frühen indoeuropäischen Kultur treu und hielt das ternäre System für das Hauptprinzip der Konstruktion des philosophischen Systems, unterdessen war die Metaphysik von Aristoteles binär. Der Grund für diese paradigmatische Nichtübereinstimmung liegt womöglich in dem kulturellen Unterschied, der beide Philosophen trennte.
EN
Today we’re used to measure the value of works of culture through the lens of originality and their creators’ innovation. Against this background appears an outlying standpoint of Giovanni Reale, an Italian historian and Ancient philosophy scholar, who appreciated Aristotle's greatness and, first of all, believed he was a faithful continuer of Plato’s teachings. Even though Reale gives multiple accounts proving his own thesis, his point of view is contrary to most readers’ impressions of the two philosophers. His thesis doesn’t stand a chance against a critique from a different point of view. Polemicizing with Reale’s thesis, I’m going to prove that the difference between Plato and Aristotle is rooted deep down in the quintessence of their ontological views. Faithful to the tradition of the early Indo-European culture, Plato acknowledged ternary structures as the primal principle of his philosophical system, meanwhile Aristotelian metaphysics is binary. The reason for this paradigmatical incoherence may be the cultural differences between both philosophers. Nowadays this issue is a subject of academic research, especially on the grounds of transculturalism.
PL
Współcześnie zwykliśmy mierzyć wartość wytworów kultury oryginalnością i innowacyjnością ich twórców. Na tym tle jako odosobniony przypadek jawi się stanowisko włoskiego badacza filozofii antycznej, Giovanniego Realego, który doceniając wielkość Arystotelesa, dostrzega w nim przede wszystkim wiernego kontynuatora filozoficznego dzieła Platona. Chociaż Reale przywołuje liczne i ważne argumenty na rzecz swojej tezy, jego punkt widzenia koliduje z odczuciami większości czytelników obydwu filozofów i nie wytrzymuje krytyki z perspektywy, której Reale wcale nie wziął pod uwagę w swojej pracy badawczej. Polemizując z tezą włoskiego historyka, wykażę, że różnica pomiędzy Platonem a Arystotelesem sięga meritum ich poglądów ontologicznych. Wierny tradycji wczesnej kultury indoeuropejskiej Platon przyjmował układ ternarny za naczelną zasadę konstrukcji systemu filozoficznego, tymczasem metafizyka Arystotelesa jest binarna. Powodem tej paradygmatycznej niezgodności może być różnica kulturowa dzieląca obu filozofów.
12
Content available remote

Franciszka Tidicaeusa Quaestio ethica et politica, utrum honestum natura constet, an vero tantum opinione. Wstęp, przekład z języka łacińskiego i komentarz

61%
Dreikopel T.
Folia Toruniensia
|
2017
|
vol. 17
231-142
PL
Opracowanie obejmuje wstęp, przekład i komentarz do powstałego na początku lat 80. XVI w., a opublikowanego w 1609 r. tekstu, którego autorem jest Franciszek Tidicaeus (1554–1617), doktor filozofii i medycyny, lekarz urzędowy i profesor Gimnazjum Akademickiego w Toruniu.
EN
The study consists of the introduction, translation and commentary to the text written at the beginning of the 1580s by Franciscus Tidicaeus (1554–1617) a doctor of Philosophy and Medicine, a medical doctor and professor in the Academic Gymnasium School in Toruń. The text was published in 1609.
DE
Die Bearbeitung umfasst die Einleitung, Übersetzung und den Kommentar zum Text, der am Anfang der 80er Jahre des 16. Jahrhunderts von Franziskus Tidicaeus (1554–1617), Doktor der Philosophie und Medizin, Amtsarzt und Professor des Akademischen Gymnasiums zu Thorn verfasst und 1609 veröffentlicht wurde.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.