Minima Planudea: Un Bizantino Tra Paradigma E Rivoluzione
Summary
In a recent article R. H. Robins has tried to raise the interest in the grammatical work of Maximüs Planudes (c. 1255–1305); still today, we have little on this remarkable late-medieval figure by Byzantinists, classical philologists, or historians of linguistics. The present paper hopes to promote a greater interest in the linguistic production of the Oriental Empire. Following two ‘pro-treptic’ paragraphs (a general one on Byzantine grammar, and a particular one devoted to Planudes and the Byzantines) the relationship between Planudes and the numerous authors he read are analyzed, e.g., Priscian, Apollonius Dys-colus, and others. Thus, in the section “Prepositions, movement, and Planudean literature” Planudes’ proposal is presented according to which the relation between certain Greek prepositions (such as napa/nepí) and ???araatç / ???KU^aiç could be analyzed by resorting to a distinction between two types of movement, a rectilinear one extending to all four directions, and a circular one. The latter type is a relative one only, since a circular thing (???oyaXpd) in final analysis remains motionless with regard to external points of reference; only the positions of its points vary. This theory, however, is not original with Planudes, as it harks back to the Aristotelian De cáelo and other pre-Planudean sources. In the section “Word order and ‘essential’ proposition” Planudes’ explanation why particular lexemes belonging to a given word class precede others of nearly equivalent meaning is studied, and also his explanation why a sentence model, though containing all parts of speech, could be reduced to a subject/predicate structure through progressive deletions. Even in this Planudes is not entirely original; there are almost identical statements to be found in Apollonius and Priscian. Finally, in the section “Planudes and the disciples mentioned in his works: Kugéas — a fancy?” the traditional view is disproven according to which Planudes alludes in his treatises to his own disciples. In fact, the names mentioned in them, such as Apollonius, Dionysius, and others, are little more than exposés of the writings of Apollonius Dyscolus and Priscian. The paper concludes by noting that Maximus Planudes is hardly an original thinker; however, a full study of his work, in particular the preparation of a critical edition, remains desirable in view of its reflection of the then prevailing ‘paradigm’, the framework of a fairly neglected period in the history of linguistic thought.