Aristotle preferably if that's possible.
-
-
Replying to @LokiJulianus
Let's start with his Ethics. What we call the Nicomachean Ethics, for example, is mentioned under this name in Cicero's works and Porphyry (234-305) knows both the Nicomachean and Eudemus' Ethics. The Great Ethics is a compilation of the former two, made after Aristotle's death.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nastyinmuhtaxi @LokiJulianus
All MSS of the Eud. Eth. contain Books V-VII of Nic. Eth., which points to the fact that this was already the case in Antiquity (or that all MSS are based on a single root MS containing this). This shows the bad nature of Aristotle's transmission, which is unlike most authors.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nastyinmuhtaxi @LokiJulianus
Now the Nic. Eth are based on six MSS, Laurentianus lxxxi. 11 (10th c.), Parisiensis 1854 (12th), Marcianus 213 (14th), Riccardianus 46 (14th), Marcianus 214 (14th) and Marxianus Append. iv. 53 (14th). We also have Moerbeke's latin translation which was used by Aquinas.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nastyinmuhtaxi @LokiJulianus
All these manuscripts have different readings, which mean different sources. We can track many of these sources down to ~250 BC Alexandria, where most scientific editions have been made in Antiquity. Their different errors tell us that many parallel traditions existed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nastyinmuhtaxi @LokiJulianus
But there's more: Aspasius (2nd AD) commented the Nic. Eth, as well as Alexander of Aphrodisias, in the same century. Heliodorus did a paraphrase of the Nic. Eth., and all were in possession of slightly differing versions of the same text.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nastyinmuhtaxi @LokiJulianus
The fact that the MSS contain so many errors and differences is actually a proof for the validity of the MS tradition we have. It shows that early on, these works already had many versions, which means we have multiple sources, and multiple proof of Aristotle's works.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nastyinmuhtaxi @LokiJulianus
The fact that so many authors in Antiquity mention a text by NAME, that they have different versions of it, although the text is ~99% the same, shows us that the text benefited from an extremely rich manuscript tradition in Antiquity, meaning it couldn't have been tampered with
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nastyinmuhtaxi @LokiJulianus
But it goes even further: we have eleven (11) papyri of Aristotle, dating between the first and fifth century AD. The papyrus of The Constitution of the Athenians is dated 80 AD. We have two passages from the Nic. Eth. from Oxyrhyncus, dated from the 2nd century AD.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nastyinmuhtaxi @LokiJulianus
And the versions contained in these papyri, which are attestations of a much earlier MS tradition, often the Alexandrine edition, are the SAME as those we own from the 10th century. This goes to show the great quality of the MSS we own, even in the 10th century.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
And this in turn should lead us to believe that if the Byzantine were able to preserve such a great manuscript tradition for over 700 years, the tradition in Antiquity, from Aristotle down to Alexandria, thence down to papyri, must have been even better.
-
-
Replying to @nastyinmuhtaxi @LokiJulianus
And right now, we're discussing one the worse manuscript preservations of Ancient Greece. Our Homer is virtually flawless. Our Plato is excellent. Even minor authors benefited from an excellent preservation.
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.