English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

International audienceLatin commentators came across the « Third Man » for the first time 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. Influenced by Boethius’ translation, their interpretation took into account all relevant information whilst putting a whole new face on the « Third Man » argument. The essay shows that their peculiar interpretation actually originates from a curious mistake in Boethius’ translation, which radically transformed the argument. In this, the fate of the medieval « Third Man » illustrates some of the remarkable features of the medieval archive and how some of its most interesting objects came to be.Les commentateurs latins ont rencontré pour la première fois le « Troisième homme » d’Aristote dans le chapitre vingt-deux des Sophistici elenchi. Cette rencontre illustre bien à la fois leur respect de la lettre et la radicalité de certaines de leurs innovations. Influencée par la traduction de Boèce, leur exégèse de l’argument a tenu compte de l’ensemble des indications du texte tout en leur donnant une signification inédite

Et quoniam est quis tertius homo. Argument, exégèse, contresens dans la littérature latine apparentée aux Sophistici elenchi d'Aristote