12世紀におけるユークリッドDataのラテン訳について

抄録

The positive assimilation and recovery by the Latin West of Greek science and civilization took place in the 12th century through extensive translations from Arabic and Greek While the transmission of Greek science through Arabic to the Latin Europe has been considerably clarified by such experts as Suter, Leclerc, Wustenfeld and Steinschneider, many things still remain dark concerning the scientific transmission immediately through Greek, to the Latin West in spite of excellent pioneer studies by Haskins and Heiberg In 1963, I edited the first text of the Latin version of Euclid's Data from the following two extant manuscripts 1 MS Oxford, Bodl Auct F 5 28, 13 c 99 r-113 r 2 MS Paris, Bibl Nat lat 16648, 13-14 c 60 r-91 r By investigating these manuscripts of the Latin Data and others, I have found some interesting new facts about the transmission of scientific works via Greek to the Latin West First of all, the fact that this Latin translation of the Data was made from the Greek is obvious from the following evidences 1 the existence of the direct transliteration of the Greek words, like catigmeni, anigmeni, parathesi, cathetus, orthogonius etc 2 the exact correspondence in particles and conjunctions used in the Greek text and the Latin translation 3 the exactly same order of words is found in both the Greek original and the Latin version The problem of the preparation of this medieval Latin translation from Greek of the Data is divided into three sub-problems 1) Where did this translation take place ? 2) When did the translation come into existence ? 3) Who translated it into Latin ? My conclusions to problems 1) and 2) are as follows 1) This Latin translation was made in Sicily as a part of the vast translation of Greek scientific works which took place there in "the medieval renaissance" 2) This translation came into existence in the middle of the 12th century and not later than 1160 As regards problem 3), which is very crucial to my study, I have reached the following conclusions 3) (i)It is certain that our translator of the Data also made Latin versions from the Greek of Euclid's Optics, Catoptrics and Proclus' Elementatio physica (or De motu) (ii) It is probable that this prolific author is the same person as the anonymous translator of Ptolemy's Almagest who was studied by Haskins and Heiberg These conclusions concerning the identification of the translator have been drawn primarily through a comparative investigation of the texts For the first conclusion, I compared our text of the Latin Data with the Latin version of Euclid's Optics and Catoptrics in the Oxford manuscript (MS Oxford, Bodl Auct F 5 28, 57 r-64 r De visu liber and 64 r-69 r De speculis liber) and with the full text of Proclus' Elementatio physica published recently by H Boese As the result of this investigation, I found that they accord so well in all translating techniques as to ensure the identification of the translator of these four works As far as the second conclusion is concerned, I based it on a remarkable passage in the preface by the Latin translator of Ptolemy's Almagest, which seems to suggest that the translator of the Almagest is the same as that of the other four works above-mentioned This view is also supported by the studies of Haskins and Boese, which confirmed the identity of the translator of the Almagest with that of Proclus' Elementatio physica through their careful comparisons of translating techniques between the two translations These conclusions seem to be very important for the scientific transmission in the early Middle Ages, because, if the same person translated these various works, he would occupy a prominent position in editing the translation of mathematical works from the Greek not unlike that of Gerard of Cremona in the sphere of translation from the Arabic