Leone Gazziero

The essay provides a comprehensive historical and methodological framework (a « user’s manual » in short) for approaching Aristotle’s elusive treatise on Ideas – « not quite lost, not quite recovered ». Its starting point is the observation that Aristotle’s anti-Platonic remarks on Forms rank among the sharpest in the corpus, yet they confront the reader with a methodological paradox: on the one hand, his attacks are strikingly coherent and appear to presuppose a long and technically sophisticated debate; on the other hand, precisely because Aristotle so often writes in a laconic, recapitulatory mode, the dossier remains frustratingly obscured by gaps in detail. The result is a familiar interpretive dilemma: either one treats the treatise as essentially unrecoverable and contents oneself with scattered allusions, or one attempts an ambitious reconstruction that risks conflating later paraphrase, doxography, or scholastic smoothing with Aristotle’s own text. The paper rejects this forced choice. It argues that the Peri Ideôn can be approached with genuine philological traction, provided one adopts a rigorous protocol that distinguishes types of evidence and assigns each an appropriate inferential weight. In short, the paper function less as a speculative reconstruction than as an operational guide to what can be reconstructed and to what must remain conjectural. The essay unfolds in three stages. First, it situates the Peri Ideôn within Aristotle’s broader metaphysical preoccupations with universality—what it is to say that something is one over many, and what kind of being (if any) such a universal enjoys. This framing matters because it allows the reader to see that Aristotle’s engagement with Platonic Forms is not an episodic quarrel, but a cluster of pressure-points where issues about science, definition, and predication come to the fore. Second, the paper reopens the textual and editorial dossier with special attention to the transmission-layer through which the treatise is known. Here its contribution is deliberately practical: it explains how the fragments traditionally assembled from Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentary tradition can now be handled more finely by asking what we should count as a “fragment,” what we should count as a paraphrase, and where Alexander may already be interpreting rather than transmitting. Third, the essay tests this protocol on a set of canonical argumentative nodes – those places where Aristotle’s own writings gesture most clearly toward the treatise and where later readers most insistently return (most notably in connection with the « Third Man Argument », which serves as a case in point). In sum, the essay does not claim to offer a new grand reconstruction, but rather a disciplined way of reading a lost work through layered witnesses. By offering explicit rules of use (what to extract, what to bracket, what to treat as later mediation), the essay aims to make the Peri Ideôn usable again for historians of Platonism and Aristotelianism alike: usable as a map of argumentative options within the Academy, and usable as a key for interpreting the most compressed and allusive anti-Platonic passages of Aristotle’s surviving corpus.

While there is little doubt that Aristotle had no sympathy for Plato’s Ideas, it is not always clear what his grievances with them were, and to what extent he did justice to the arguments Plato and other proponents of the Ideas put forward in favour of their existence. His criticism is usually both highly condensed and allusive. In fact, Aristotle seems to assume everywhere that his readers were remarkably familiar with the complexities of a debate that it would be difficult to reconstruct solely on the basis of the traces it has left in his school writings. Hence the great interest of a quasi-canonical source – the Peri ideôn – in which Aristotle addresses the problems of knowing whether there are ideas, whether it is possible to prove that they exist, and whether or not such proofs are all of equal value or not. Yet from the earliest attempts at reconstruction to the most recent interpretations, Aristotle’s lost work on Plato’s Ideas remains an enigmatic text. In particular, we may wonder whether the language and content, as revealed by Alexander of Aphrodite in his commentary on the book Great Alpha of the Metaphysics, reflect the letter of the original or whether it has been reorganised or rearranged, or even reworked in ways and for purposes that were at the sole discretion of the commentator. The translation and the eight essays collected in this volume explore the fragments of the Peri ideôn precisely from the angle of this multi-term equation, each time taking into account the difficulties associated with the testimony of Alexander of Aphrodite, who used the Peri ideôn in order to explain an Aristotelian text other than the Peri ideôn itself.

In addition to presenting the first critical edition and comprehensive study of both the content and historical background of a well-known sophisma (and fallacy) – namely, Coriscus est alter ab homine (Coriscus is other than man) – the chapter uses it as a case in point to reassess the broader relationship between medieval fallacies and sophismata. It argues for a much closer synergy and a difference of simple degree rather than essence between the two. In so doing, sophismata and fallacies are replaced within the framework of Latin logic understood as a “logic in reverse” of sorts, that is a logical project grounded in the persuasion that only by testing a rule to its breaking point – by pushing it to its outermost limits and beyond – can one truly gauge its validity, force and universality. The edition of the eponymous sophisma is provided as an appendix of the study proper.

Abstract The manner in which philosophy was practised in the Middle Ages was highly variagated. Until now, historiography has largely focused on the canonical genres of commentaries and treatises. This volume is devoted to another and fundamental type of medieval philosophical practice and demonstrates that the so-called sophismatic practice and literature, largely neglected to this day, had a significant influence on scholastic philosophical thought. Die Herausgeber Laurent Cesalli is Professor for Medieval Philosophy at the University of Geneva and, together with Gerald Hartung (Wuppertal), co-editor of Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie (Ueberweg). Leone Gazziero is a research fellow at the CNRS at the STL (Savoirs, Textes, Langage) laboratory at the University of Lille. He is the director of the ERC Synergia large-scale project “Logic in Reverse” which investigates medieval theories of bad arguments in Greek, Hebrew, Arabic and Latin cultures. Frédéric Goubier is a medievalist, researcher in philosophy at the University of Geneva and author, together with Sten Ebbesen, of the catalogue of sophismatic literature (2010). Alain de Libera is Professor emeritus for Medieval Philosophy at the University of Geneva, Directeur de Recherche at the EPHE (École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris), and Professor emeritus at the Collège de France (Paris). Clarisse Reynard is a doctoral student at the University of Geneva, where she is preparing a PhD on late medieval theories of memory, a work that will include the first critical edition of Johannes Versoris’ commentary on Aristotle’s De memoria et reminiscentia. Bibliographic details Laurent Cesalli/Leone Gazziero/Frédéric Goubier/Alain Libera/Clarisse Reynard (Hg.) Sophismata - Histoire d’une pratique philosophique / History of a way of doing philosophy 2026, Schwabe Verlag Reihe: Medieval and Early Modern Philosophy ISBN: 978-3-7965-5423-0

Bad arguments have never been in short supply. The scholarly interest they have elicited in recent years, on the other hand, is quite exceptional. Fallacy studies have become a well established and flourishing field of argumentation theory. Without notable exception, the ever-growing literature on argumentative failures suffer from a conspicuous lack of interest in Mediaeval fallacy theory – arguably the most creative stage in the whole history of argumentation theories. The standard story is that after Aristotle got off to a tentative start, the study of fallacies laid dormant until people at Port Royal and John Locke revived it in spectacular fashion. «Fallacies in the Arabic, Byzantine, Hebrew and Latin Traditions» will show that this narrative is misleading, if not altogether false. Free of boundaries or limitations imposed by differences in discipline, language and culture, the volume will provide ample and unambiguous record of the exegetical proficiency, technical expertise and argumentative savoir-faire typically displayed by mediaeval logicians jurists and theologians on issues whose complexity we underestimate to some extent – such as the problem of defining what a fallacy is or the pitfalls of linguistic expression. Working its way from the inside out within each mediaeval tradition and comparing mediaeval findings and lessons to contemporary views and trends, the volume will show where the potential for novelty and the rightful place of mediaeval theories of fallacies lies within contemporary argumentation studies

The prologue of the Sophistici elenchi is as close an Aristotelian text gets to dealing with language as a subject matter in its own right, only in reverse. Language and its features bear consideration to the extent that they account for some major predicaments discursive reasoning is prone to, both as a separate and as a common endeavour. That being said, the linguistic pitfalls that trick us into thinking that whatever is the case for words and word-compounds is also the case for the things and facts linguistic items stand for reveal as much about good linguistic habits and sound argumentation as they themselves are revealed by the principles and rules our argumentation goes by. In this connection, Aristotle resorted to a curious (or not so curious) analogy between words and counters which played a major role in explaining why language is such a powerful source of illusion and deception. As it happens, Aristotle accounting analogy is a case in point for showcasing the level of sophistication medieval Latin literature on fallacies achieved as early as the first half of the twelfth century. As a matter of fact, Western commentators managed to build compelling cases both in favour of and against the understanding that was to become and still is the standard story – which, of course, speaks volumes about their exegetical proficiency and technical expertise. On the one hand, trusting implicitly Boethius’ translation and well aware of his views on disputational hazards as opposed to computational reliability, they usually understood Aristotle’s comparison as if it was an analogy in name only. On the other hand, despite Boethius’ translation put them at a considerable disadvantage, Latin commentators were able to construe Aristotle’s analogy as bringing together two sets of symbolic variables (words and counters) that are neither entirely free nor entirely bound – which expose them to subtle but critical shifts in value and meaning.

Quelque nombreuses et quelque influentes qu'elles soient par ailleurs, les vues d'Aristote sur le langage se caractérisent à la fois par leur hétérogénéité et par leur marginalité. Sans faire nulle part du langage et de la signification l'objet d'une investigation autonome et méthodique, Aristote multiplie les remarques et les digressions à leur sujet, que ce soit dans ses écrits d'éthique et de politique ou dans ses traités d'histoire et de philosophie naturelle, ou encore dans ses manuels de dialectique, de poétique et de rhétorique. Face à l'abondance de ces matériaux et aux difficultés qu'ils présentent du fait de s'offrir au lecteur en ordre quelque peu dispersé, «Le langage. Lectures d'Aristote» fait le choix d'indexer l'étude du langage chez Aristote sur des passages précis du corpus en ne posant aux textes aristotéliciens d'intérêt linguistique que les questions auxquelles ces mêmes textes - tantôt pris isolément, tantôt mis en relation les uns avec les autres - apportent une réponse.

L. Gazziero, « “Οἰκείως τῇ λογικῇ πραγματείᾳ” (Simplicii in Aristotelis categorias commentarium, 12.11). Contraintes disciplinaires – anciennes et modernes – de l’interprétation logique des Catégories d’Aristote », dans V. Brière et J. Lemaire (éd.), Qu’est-ce qu’une catégorie ? Interprétations d’Aristote, Leuven, Peeters, 2019, p. 9-59 [ISBN 9789042936621] In addition to understanding the very notion of « category » according to its different Aristotelian contexts, the first order of business of an archaeology of Aristotle’s categories is to inquire into its influential evolution at the hands of Late Ancient commentators. The essay retraces the origin and development of the « logical » interpretation which held sway both in ancient and modern times. It shows first that the key to understand the debate between Benveniste and Derrida over Aristotle’s categories is to be found in the Neoplatonic exegesis of the work of the same name. It shows next the powerful dynamic that led the commentators to dismiss more than a few hints in the text itself in order to build a remarkably consistent interpretation that understood the notion of category as the simplest and most fundamental element in a building block theory of linguistic expression and argumentation. Face au foisonnement qui caractérise l’instruction contemporaine du dossier des « catégories » d’Aristote, il est encore et toujours utile de suivre le fil historique inauguré par Adolf Trendelenburg, réinventé par Emile Benveniste et élevé par Jacques Derrida au rang d’impératif méthodologique. Le geste inaugural d’une archéologie de la notion de « catégorie » consiste donc à se prémunir contre le risque d’évacuer le problème historique des catégories à la faveur d’une catégorialité anachronique ou passe-partout : ce qui n’est possible qu’à condition de replacer les « catégories » dans les différents contextes aristotéliciens où elles sont utilisées et d’interroger les contraintes disciplinaires qui ont structuré le débat autour de leur nature chez les commentateurs de l’Antiquité tardive.

L. Gazziero, « Machiavelli », in M. Lewis and D. Rose (ed.), The Bloomsbury Italian Philosophy Reader, London, Bloomsbury, 2022, p. 51-58 Confusion verging on chaos aptly describes Italian politics between any two points in time. That being said, the amount of outright violence, political backstabbing and social upheaval Machiavelli had to put up with - as a successful bureaucrat and diplomat first (1498-1512), and later as a disgraced citizen (1512-27) is, with few if any exceptions, virtually unmatched in the history of Italian philosophy. At any rate, it is conspicuous enough to put him in a league of his own (among political thinkers). All the more so since, in Machiavelli's own words, his claim to originality rested on a return to the things themselves and the 'real truth' they convey through experience, as opposed to the traditional proclivity towards speculation regarding 'imaginary things', most notably by portraying fanciful characters and devising political regimes that can only exist on paper. Indeed, philosophers had long been lecturing- either in flawless syllogistic fashion or in vivid rhetorical style - both rulers and subjects on how they should behave and interact. However, they had taken little notice of how they actually go about their business. Alternatively, what does unbiased, direct observation of the present and extensive, informed reading of the past teach us about the ways of the world?

In hindsight, it is not surprising that the exegesis of Aristotle’s Sophistici elenchi developed into one of the most substantial parts of the Latin commentary tradition. To make a long story short, in its customary capacity as the art of arts and the science of sciences, medieval logic was primarily concerned with discerning the true from the false in arguments as they occur in natural, ordinary speech as opposed to the more formalised parlance later logicians will resort to. It makes perfect sense, then, that medieval logicians paid special attention to everything that threatens sound reasoning and that prevents us from speaking the truth. Indeed, they were second to none and better than most at exposing and elucidating arguments’ flaws and shortcomings. After all, as John Buridan – faithful to a long and illustrious tradition – aptly put it, «rooting out errors» is logic’s first order of business. As early as the 1140s, Aristotle’s Sophistici elenchi provided the most fertile ground for such keen interest in fallacies; which, in turn, explains etc. This much is uncontroversial or, at any rate, can withstand any amount of scrutiny we care to throw at it. Courtesy – first and foremost – of Sten Ebbesen, whose long-standing interest in medieval writings on bad arguments has turned the Byzantine and Latin aftermath of Aristotle’s Sophistici elenchi into well-charted territory, by all standards. The Anonymus Cantabrigiensis has played no small part in shaping this picture. As a matter of fact, time and again over the last forty years or so, quotes and insights from the anonymous work have kept showing up in Ebbesen’s editions and studies: since he first discovered the commentary in the late 1970s and brought it to the general attention, Ebbesen has routinely drawn on the Anonymus as an early witness of the circulation of Aristotelian logical works and related texts, as a convenient illustration of major trends and distinctive features of the Latin literature on fallacies, and as a sensible interpreter in his own right.

Relying on evidence from fifteen epigraphic collections and sixty-odd ancient sources as well as discussing a literature of over five hundred titles, the essay’s highly unorthodox conclusions are a case in point of the micrological ideal of achieving novelty on any given subject by way of transcribing and studying first-hand all relevant materials – edited and unedited alike. The paper’s ambition was to shed new light on one of the most intriguing analogies of the whole Aristotelian corpus, namely the comparison between words and pebbles. A review of all material evidence and virtually all extant sources made short work of two related, albeit mutually exclusive, misconception about ancient reckoning boards and their workings: (1) the idea that – for all practical purposes – the abacus’ arrangement mirrored the decimal system, its columns and rows conveniently matching units, tens, hundreds, thousands, etc. (2) the idea that the inscriptions on several surviving counting boards were a nuisance to the extent that, being inconsistent to a fault with the decimal system itself, they made actual calculations harder than they already were (as opposed to making them easier, as one would expect). The paper demonstrated that the first assumption – the « decimal » bias – is simply mistaken and betrays little or no awareness of the epigraphic and archaeological evidence. The paper also demonstrated that the second assumption – the « abacus riddled with complications » bias – simply defeats the purpose of resorting to the abacus in the first place and betrays a poor understanding of its practical vocation which, most assuredly, was not to add to the very problem it was meant to solve. After bulldozing its way through both misunderstandings, the essay focused on the abacus most distinctive features, that is positionality (i.e. the abacus being a positional system through and through) and hybridity (i.e. the abacus’ place value system being monetary in nature and purpose, as opposed to it being abstract and homogeneous). The final result is an interpretation that moves away from the received views by showing that the prologue of the Sophistici elenchi offers no support to the notion that, when Aristotle referred to counters, he was leaning on a kinship of sorts – or any kinship, for that matter – between abstract calculation and speech. Once we turns the pebble’s simile on its head and set it back upon its feet (Aristotle’s pebble analogy is about pebbles, what else?), it becomes clear that it presupposed numeracy all right, but it was not about numeracy itself. Moreover its goal was not to explain why computational and linguistic symbolisms succeed, but to explain how they fail – failure being the whole point; in this particular instance, failure to detect and prevent abusive value shifts affecting words and counters alike.

Even though Aristotle speaks often about language, his remarks do not fall within the province of any given discipline, let alone belong to the same subject matter or amount to a πραγματεία of their own. Rather, they are somewhat scattered across the Aristotelian corpus and are to be gleaned from a vast array of texts, including ethical and political writings (where language plays a remarkable role in shaping human sociability), treatises on natural history (where Aristotle outlines the physiology of phonation in some animals such as birds and human beings), books on the soul (where Aristotle describes how language is intertwined with perception, imagination and thought) and works on dialectics, poetics and rhetoric (where linguistic expression is described as a powerful means of both persuasion and deception). Accordingly, «Le langage. Lectures d’Aristote» elects to study Aristotle’s understanding of language and its workings by asking relevant Aristotelian texts only those questions these texts answer – either by themselves or in conjunction with one another. Quelque nombreuses et quelque influentes qu'elles soient par ailleurs, les vues d'Aristote sur le langage se caractérisent à la fois par leur hétérogénéité et par leur marginalité. Sans faire nulle part du langage et de la signification l'objet d'une investigation autonome et méthodique, Aristote multiplie les remarques et les digressions à leur sujet, que ce soit dans ses écrits d'éthique et de politique ou dans ses traités d'histoire et de philosophie naturelle, ou encore dans ses manuels de dialectique, de poétique et de rhétorique. Face à l'abondance de ces matériaux et aux difficultés qu'ils présentent du fait de s'offrir au lecteur en ordre quelque peu dispersé, «Le langage. Lectures d'Aristote» fait le choix d'indexer l'étude du langage chez Aristote sur des passages précis du corpus en ne posant aux textes aristotéliciens d'intérêt linguistique que les questions auxquelles ces mêmes textes - tantôt pris isolément, tantôt mis en relation les uns avec les autres - apportent une réponse.

« Qu’est-ce que le langage et à quoi sert-il ? » « Qu’est-ce qu’un signe linguistique et en quoi consiste sa signification ? » « Quels sont les effets que les expressions linguistiques produisent, les contraintes qu’il faut respecter et les précautions qu’il convient de prendre lorsqu’on les utilise ? » Ce complexe de questions, dont on peut retracer l’origine dans un certain nombre de textes de l’Antiquité, oriente depuis les enjeux fondamentaux de la réflexion sur la nature et le sens des expressions linguistiques ainsi que sur les conditions effectives de leur utilisation. Au fil des débats philosophiques, littéraires et autres, cette compréhension du langage s’est déclinée en une variété de manières d’entendre ce que, pour une expression linguistique ou une suite d’expressions linguistiques données, « signifier » veut dire. Les contributions de ce numéro thématique se sont concentrées sur les idées linguistiques que les auteurs de langue et culture grecque – confrontés, plus ou moins explicitement, à la question « comment penser le langage ? » – ont développées afin de rendre compte du phénomène complexe de la signification comme propriété des signes linguistiques, corrélat d’un contenu de pensée ou encore comme produit d’une pratique réglée d’échanges.

Aux prises avec une archive en pleine expansion et une littérature secondaire dont la masse a atteint et, notamment depuis son tournant numérique, largement dépassé un seuil critique, l’archéologie philosophique a fait le deuil du rêve micrologique de « tout lire, tout étudier » que Michel Foucault s’était pourtant donné pour idéal régulateur en s’interdisant d’effectuer un tri en amont des « choses dites dans une culture, conservées, valorisées, réutilisées, répétées et transformées ». Il importe désormais moins de décrire la totalité d’un champ que de tracer et de croiser des itinéraires. En gros, il s’agit de « raconter des intrigues », selon la formule bien connue de Paul Veyne. Arrimée à la philologie et à l’histoire des corpus, cette théâtralisation du travail philosophique n’est cependant pas arbitraire. Comme l’explique Alain de Libera dans l’un des rares propos métarchéologiques qu’il a livrés en marge de son œuvre canonique, face à l’« accumulation folle de connaissances et d’informations » qui caractérise l’environnement actuel de la recherche, « le rôle de l’historien-archéologue est d’identifier les bonnes structures ». Comment s’y prend-il ? « Il y a pour ce faire – poursuit Alain de Libera au cours du même « Grand entretien d’Actu-Philosophia » – un critère d’identification heuristique : la simplicité. La force d’une hypothèse de travail se mesure au nombre d’éléments qu’elle est capable d’intégrer et d’unifier, en un mot : de “simplifier” ». Parmi les intrigues qui ont marqué l’histoire récente de l’archéologie à vocation philosophique il y a sans doute l’« ἐπιστήμη alexandrinienne » qu’Alain de Libera a identifiée en étudiant les doctrines anciennes et médiévales de l’abstraction et qu’il a baptisée de la sorte pour souligner le rôle qu’Alexandre d’Aphrodise a joué dans sa genèse. Pour peu qu’il soit convaincu de son intérêt intrinsèque, le lecteur, surtout s’il se trouve être un antiquisant ou un médiéviste, résistera difficilement à la tentation de se demander s’il est possible de procéder à une extension – même ponctuelle – du « réseau aphrodisien » : peut-on élargir avec le même succès son domaine d’application en testant son pouvoir d’inclusion dans d’autres cas que celui de la filière qu’il était initialement destiné à synchroniser ? C’est une ébauche de simplification de cet ordre que mon hommage voudrait esquisser à partit de quelques textes qu’Alain de Libera a lui-même étudiés et selon une trajectoire parallèle à celle qu’il a lui-même tracée.

Do Ideas exist and can we prove it ? Do proofs of their existence have all the same value or not ? Aristotle addresses these issues in two famous documents of the controversy that pitted supporters of the theory of Forms against its opponents within Plato’s Academy : his lost work, quoted by Alexander of Aphrodisias by the title of Peri Ideon, and the lengthy thrust against Ideas that can be read, with some minor variations, in books A, chapter 9, and M, chapter 4, of his Metaphysics. As we only have fragments of the first, the second being laconic and little more than a summary, there has been much speculation about the exact number and nature of the arguments for and against the Forms. Since the pioneering works of Léon Robin, Paul Wilpert et Harold Cherniss, one problem in particular has attracted the attention of specialists : what arguments does Aristotle accuse of either producing Ideas on relatives for one or of dragging in the « Third Man » for another ? Why does he consider these arguments to be more rigorous than the others ? If we are not dealing with the same arguments, how can these be more or better argued than those mentioned by Aristotle in the same breath, namely the arguments Plato’s followers took from the sciences, the one over many and the thought about things that have perished ? Through detailed analysis of texts from the Corpus Aristotelicum and Alexander’s commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Rationes ex machina develops a new interpretation of the controversial file of the akribesteroi tôn logôn as well as a micrological solution to the puzzle that has come to be a sort of compulsory figure of the exegesis of the Aristotelian criticism of « Plato’s Ideas ».

Celebrated as the equal to the great philosophers of old, namely Plato and Aristotle, whom – as Cassiodorus put it – he taught to speak Latin better than they spoke Greek, Boethius aspired to fully emancipate Roman culture from its Greek models through translations and exegesis so faithful they would leave nothing more to be desired from the original. The essay focuses on Boethius philhellenism, without complexes insofar as it had little to do either with the mixed feelings of his Roman predecessors or with the plundering agenda of his Christian contemporaries. Special attention is paid to the close relationship Boethius established between word for word translations and multi-layered commentaries which he thought of and – albeit partially – carried out as part of the same scholarly endeavour. Devoid of literary pretentions as well as free from aspirations to autonomy, Boethius literal rendering and scrupulous interpretation were meant to be completely self-sufficient. Together they stand out as both the most innovative and the most conservative features of his ambitious cultural project. Célébré comme l’égal des grands philosophes du passé, auxquels il aurait appris à parler Latin mieux qu’ils ne parlaient Grec, Boèce a caressé le rêve d’une émancipation radicale de la culture romaine vis-à-vis des modèles grecs qu’il se proposait de traduire et interpréter assez fidèlement pour que la comparaison avec les sources ne soit plus nécessaire. De son effort de livrer un Aristote et un Platon latins à la hauteur des originaux grecs, nous étudions l’étroite solidarité qui relie la traduction mot-à-mot des textes grecs et la restitution scrupuleuse de leur sens. Cette double tâche, que Boèce a conçue et menée d’un seul tenant, nous est dès lors apparue comme le reflet d’un philhellénisme sans complexes, tout aussi éloigné des sentiments ambivalents que nourrissaient vis-à-vis des hellènes ses devanciers romains que des efforts visant à domestiquer l’héritage classique auxquels se livraient certains de ses contemporains de même confession que lui. Affranchis de tout rêve d’autonomie, les traductions et les commentaires de Boèce se conçoivent comme parfaitement autosuffisants. Ensemble ils constituent ce qu’il y a à la fois de franchement novateur et de profondément conservateur dans son projet de faire parler Latin les sources grecques.

Pour des raisons essentiellement liées à la vocation des textes où la notion de présupposition a fait son apparition, c’est la présupposition d’existence qui s’est imposée la première à l’attention des philosophes du langage. Elle a également déterminé l’orientation des débats en les focalisant sur quelques problèmes traditionnels, au premier chef desquels le problème de l’absence de référence de certaines expressions et celui des imperfections du langage naturel. Contrairement aux noms propres et aux descriptions définies, les termes qui signifient des universaux ont joué un rôle très marginal dans la discussion de ce qui est présupposé par les énoncés que nous échangeons. Ce sont pourtant les noms d’espèces et de genres qui ont été associés les tout premiers à des phénomènes qui relèvent de la présupposition. Afin de montrer que cette association n’a rien perdu de son intérêt, nous avons étudié le traitement qu’Aristote réserve à la famille de paralogismes qui exploitent la similarité morphologique entre noms propres et noms communs pour rattacher la même présupposition d’existence aux uns et aux autres, alors même que cette présupposition est légitime dans un cas (celui des expressions qui désignent des choses particulières), abusive dans l’autre cas (celui des expressions qui signifient des universaux).

Latin commentators came across the « Third Man » in Aristotle’s Sophistici elenchi. The way they dealt with the argument is a fair illustration of how they were both faithful to the text and innovative in their understanding of its most challenging issues. Besides providing a detailed survey of all manuscript sources, the introductory essay shows that Latin interpretation originates from a mistake in Boethius’ translation which radically transformed the argument. The edition makes available for the first time a considerable amount of new documentary evidence which made it possible to solve the riddle of the Latin « Third Man ».

Édition du troisième sophisma « Omnis homo de necessitate est animal » du ms. Paris, BnF Lat. 16135. Le texte anonyme, contenu aux f. 99rb-103vb, appartient à la seconde collection de sophismata transmis dans ce codex légué à l’Université de Paris par Étienne de Genève socius du Collège de Sorbonne, après avoir été maître ès arts à Paris dans les années 1270. Il offre un panorama des principales positions soutenues au xiiie siècle par les Antiqui et les Moderni sur la sémantique des termes vides, la distinction entre l’esse essentiae et l’esse existentiae, l’être effectif et l’être logique, le temps et la modalité.

One of the singularities of Latin exegesis of Aristotle’s Sophistici elenchi, is that it arbitrarily brought together two families of fallacies, the «figure of speech» and the «accident», despite the fact that they are on either side of the divide between sophisms related to expression and sophisms independent of expression, a divide that lays at the heart of Aristotle’s taxonomy of sophistic arguments. What is behind this surprising identification? The talk is meant to show that it actually originates from a curious mistake in Boethius’ translation of Aristotle’s Sophistici elenchi, 22, 178b 36-37 which radically transformed the nature of the argument at stake. While it was originally an example of the fallacies related to the «figure of speech», Boethius’ translation wrongly brings about two arguments instead of one, both related to the «accident». This explains why authors from the Latin tradition came to think that fallacies of «figure of speech» were linked to fallacies of «accident» closely enough to ask whether they actually fell outside expression, even though it does not at first glance appear that such a possibility was allowed or even suggested by Aristotle’s text. This odd question illustrates some of the remarkable features of the medieval archive and how some of its most peculiar problems came to be. It specifically allows us to reconstruct the mechanisms through which a minor disturbance in the letter of the text leads to a whole new way of organising its exegetical material.

Few arguments from the past have stirred up as much interest as Aristotle’s “Third man” and not so many texts have received as much attention as its account in chapter 22 of the Sophistici elenchi. And yet, several issues about both remain highly controversial, starting from the very nature of the argument at stake and the exact signification of some of its features. The essay provides a close commentary of the text, dealing with its main difficulties and suggesting an overall interpretation of Aristotle’s discussion of the “Third Man” argument.

Scholarly dissatisfaction with Aristotle’s fallacy of accident has traditionally focused on his examples, whose compatibility with the fallacy’s definition has been doubted time and again. Besides a unified account of the fallacy of accident itself, the paper provides a formalized analysis of its several examples in Aristotle’s Sophistici elenchi. The most problematic instances are dealt with by means of an internal reconstruction of their features as conveyed by Aristotle’s text and an extensive survey of their interpretation in the Byzantine and Latin exegetical tradition. Carefully handled a doxographical approach, as opposed to rapid results oriented practices, proves to be most effective in that it supplies both useful albeit ordinarily overlooked insights and a comprehensive framework of reference for further investigations.

Luc Brisson’s translation and challenging interpretation of the Parmenides stands out as one of the most influential contributions to contemporary exegesis of Plato’s arguably most controversial dialogue. While acknowledging its many virtues, the essay rejects Brisson’s understanding of the text’s focus and purpose. Brisson’s methodological assumptions are especially discussed and proven to be highly questionable on account of a rather straightforward transfer of the doxographical concerns which Plato is supposed to share with contemporary historians of Parmenides’ philosophy.

Few arguments from the past have stirred up as much interest as Aristotle’s “Third man” and not so many texts have received as much attention as its account in chapter 22 of the Sophistici elenchi. And yet, several issues about both remain highly controversial, starting from the very nature of the argument at stake and the exact signification of some of its features. The essay provides a close commentary of the text, dealing with its main difficulties and suggesting an overall interpretation of Aristotle’s discussion of the “Third Man” argument.

Y a-t-il des Idées et peut-on démontrer qu’elles existent ? Parmi les protagonistes anciens de la controverse qui a opposé partisans et adversaires des Idées, Aristote mérite une attention toute particulière. De fait, si – au moment où Aristote intervient dans le débat autour de l’hypothèse des Idées – ce débat a déjà une histoire, c’est avec lui que cette histoire atteint une maturité qui est à la fois d’ordre doctrinal et doxographique. De fait, non seulement Aristote est le premier à avoir défini certaines au moins des propriétés de ce qui est et se dit en commun de plusieurs, mais encore a-t-il pris soin d’inscrire ces définitions dans la continuité de l’héritage socratique dont il s’est explicitement revendiqué tout en dénonçant sa dérive aux mains des successeurs de Socrate. L’objectif principal du cycle de conférences a été d’étudier les objections qu’Aristote a formulées à l’encontre des partisans des Idées en prenant comme fil conducteur la notion de substance que sa discussion des Formes platoniciennes tantôt présuppose, tantôt mobilise explicitement. Pour ce faire, nous avons procédé à une lecture détaillée d’un certain nombre de documents, tirés aussi bien de ses écrits d’école que des vestiges de ses traités perdus, où Aristote rejette la notion d’un universel substantiel (autant dire, en l’occurrence, séparé) et s’efforce de mettre à mal les arguments que ses partisans avançaient pour prouver son existence.