杂乱的著作:评亚里士多德的《经度与短命》,归因于巴克菲尔德的亚当

Pub Date : 2022-03-23 DOI:10.1163/15733823-12340033
Tilke Nelis
{"title":"杂乱的著作:评亚里士多德的《经度与短命》,归因于巴克菲尔德的亚当","authors":"Tilke Nelis","doi":"10.1163/15733823-12340033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The translatio vetus of Aristotle’s De longitudine et brevitate vitae – a medieval text also known under the title of De morte et vita – was commented upon by the Oxford Master Adam of Buckfield in the thirteenth century. Inventories record two commentaries, which are either anonymous or unclearly ascribed. These writings are usually attributed by modern scholarship to Buckfield, though not always on convincing grounds. In the present article, I offer a more accurate, expanded overview of some so-called Buckfield commentaries on the translatio vetus, distinguishing between four individual texts. In order to characterize these writings, and to have a solid basis for addressing the authenticity problem, one passage from each commentary is scrutinized within the scope of a case study.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Jumble of Writings: Commentaries on Aristotle’s De Longitudine et Brevitate Vitae Attributed to Adam of Buckfield\",\"authors\":\"Tilke Nelis\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15733823-12340033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The translatio vetus of Aristotle’s De longitudine et brevitate vitae – a medieval text also known under the title of De morte et vita – was commented upon by the Oxford Master Adam of Buckfield in the thirteenth century. Inventories record two commentaries, which are either anonymous or unclearly ascribed. These writings are usually attributed by modern scholarship to Buckfield, though not always on convincing grounds. In the present article, I offer a more accurate, expanded overview of some so-called Buckfield commentaries on the translatio vetus, distinguishing between four individual texts. In order to characterize these writings, and to have a solid basis for addressing the authenticity problem, one passage from each commentary is scrutinized within the scope of a case study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15733823-12340033\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15733823-12340033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

13世纪,牛津大学巴克菲尔德的亚当评论了亚里士多德的《经度与生命简史》的翻译,这是一部中世纪的著作,也被称为《生命之书》。库存记录了两种评论,它们要么是匿名的,要么是归属不明的。这些作品通常被现代学者认为是巴克菲尔德的作品,尽管并不总是有令人信服的理由。在这篇文章中,我提供了一个更准确的,扩展的概述一些所谓的巴克菲尔德评论翻译,区分四个单独的文本。为了描述这些作品的特点,并为解决真实性问题提供坚实的基础,在案例研究的范围内仔细审查每个注释中的一段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
A Jumble of Writings: Commentaries on Aristotle’s De Longitudine et Brevitate Vitae Attributed to Adam of Buckfield
The translatio vetus of Aristotle’s De longitudine et brevitate vitae – a medieval text also known under the title of De morte et vita – was commented upon by the Oxford Master Adam of Buckfield in the thirteenth century. Inventories record two commentaries, which are either anonymous or unclearly ascribed. These writings are usually attributed by modern scholarship to Buckfield, though not always on convincing grounds. In the present article, I offer a more accurate, expanded overview of some so-called Buckfield commentaries on the translatio vetus, distinguishing between four individual texts. In order to characterize these writings, and to have a solid basis for addressing the authenticity problem, one passage from each commentary is scrutinized within the scope of a case study.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1