XXVI. К истории термина «антиномия» (к стр. 153).

Both the meaning of a known word, its “seme”, and the word for expressing a known concept, i.e., the “morpheme” and “phoneme” of the concept, its term, are constantly changing. It is therefore not enough to trace either the history of the term alone or the history of the concept alone: ​​both are necessary. Unfortunately, neither the concept of antinomy, which occupies us so much in this work, nor the term “antinomy,” which we so often use, can boast of knowledge of their genealogies. Both of them require special research, and we can, now, only outline a few points along the path of development of the latter of them. First of all, let's talk about the word “antinomy” itself. According to the unanimous definition of the new Greek lexicographers, the word “ἀντινομία” means the contradiction of a law to another, to a law, or to oneself; ἀντινομία is the internal self-contradiction of the law, but a simple violation of the law - παρανομία - or the absence of the law - ἀνομία - will not at all be an antinomy. So, according to Sophocles 996, this is a “conflict of laws”; Scarlat 997 says that ἀντινομία is “ἐναντίοτης (ἀντίφασις) νόμου τινὸς πρὸς ἄλλον ἢ πρὸς ἑαυτόν.” Anfim Gazis defines the word “ἀντινομία” as “ἐναντίωσις τοῦ νόμου, ὅταν δηλαδὴ καθ’ ἑαυτὸν ἀντιφάσχη, διοριζων τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ εἰς τὸν ἑνάγοντα καὶ εἰς τὸν ἐναγόμενον.” In the modern Greek language, the meaning of the word “ἀντινομία” is somewhat blurred, so that it already means “Gesetzwidrigkeit”, “Widerspruch”, i.e. lawlessness, and ἀντινομικός – “gesetzwidrig, einander widersprechend”, i.e. lawless, mutually contradictory 998 . It can be said with almost complete confidence that this word, from the very beginning, was a legal term; in any case, it was captured very early by jurists. M. Fabius Quintilian, at the end of the 1st century AD, uses it as everyone knows: “Proximum est de legibus contrariis dicere, quia inter omnes artium scriptores constitit in antinomia duos esse scripti et voluntatis status” 999. Further, St. Augustine 1000, also a lawyer by training, in one of the works of the end of the 4th century defines the term “antinomia” through “contentio legum contrariarum”. - In the Justinian Code 1001, published in 534 and containing laws from Hadrian to 534, as well as in writers like Hermogenes (173 A.D.), Hierocles (431 A.D.), Plutarch (120 A.D.) and Julius Victor (4th century A.D.?) 1002 contains the same use of the term “antinomy” in the sense of self-contradiction of the law to itself. It is clear that derivatives like “ἀντινομικῶς” and “ἀντινομικός” have the same meaning 1003. But, commonly used in law, the term “antinomy” was not used in philosophy for a very long time; it does not appear at all in either Plato or Aristotle 1004. The term “antinomia” is used by the author of the “Philosophical Dictionary” R. Gauquelin (1547–1628) “pro pugnantia seu coutrarietate quarumlibet sententiarum seu propositionum” 1005. Scholastic philosophy hardly knew him, at least in the dictionaries of its terms the word “antinomy” is not found 1006. In Chauvin's extensive philosophical dictionary (1640–1725) 1007, published in two editions, at the end of the 17th century (1692) and at the beginning of the 18th century (1713), there is also no word “antinomy”. 1008 Almost for the first time, C. Bonnet (1720–1793) introduced it into natural theology 1009, and here “antinomy” means a contradiction between two equally correct laws 1010. Actually in philosophy, this term, in all likelihood, was introduced by Kant and appears here for the first time in the “Critique of Pure Reason” 1011. The year 1781, as the first edition of this book is dated, is, at the same time, the year of birth of our term. As you know, Kant taught all sciences except law. But the way of his thinking and his entire nature was thoroughly legal and even legalistic. In particular, the “Critique of Pure Reason”, according to its concept, is a transfer into philosophy of the idea of ​​litigation and even the particulars of its conduct. It is not difficult to guess that the term “antinomy” came to Kant directly from Roman law, so this consideration once again ensures Kant’s right of primacy to the term that interests us. Since Kant, the position of “antinomy” as a term was immediately so strengthened, and its use became so widespread that it would be too laborious to discuss the further history of the term. E.A. Sophocles, – Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods. New York, 1885; p. 185. Σκαρλὰτος Δ. Βυζάντιος, – Λεξικὸν τῆς ἑλληνικῆς γλώσσης, ἐκδοθὲ ὑπὸ Ἀνδρέου Κορομηλα. Εν Ἀθήναις, 1852, σ. 123. Ἄνθιμος ὁ Γάζης, – Λεξικὸν ἑλληνικόν. Ἔκδοσις πρώτη. Τόμος πρῶτος. Ἐν Βενετία, 1809, στ. 446. [Th. Kind], – Handwörterbuch der neugrichischen und deutschen Sprache, Lpz., 1888. M. Fabius Quintilianus, - Institutio oratoria VII, 102. Comp. VII, 115 and VII, 71. – This work dates back to the years 93–95. Bl. Augustine, - Rhetoric, 11. - This work dates back to the last quarter of the 4th century. (Rhetores lat. min. ed. Halm, pp. 137–151). Codex Justinianus, lib. 1, tit. 17 const. 1 § 8 (Krüger, – Corpus juris civilis, ed. stereot., II, 1877. C.Jul. Victor, – Ars rhetorica, 3 11. (Rhet. lat. min. ed. Halm, p. 373–448). – Hermog. 15, 3. 56, 4. Rhetores graeci. – Hierocl. – C. A. 42, 2 (Gaisford’s Stobaeus, II). –Plut. II, 741 D (Paris edition 1624). The notes [1015–1018] are compiled, in addition to the dictionaries mentioned above [1011, 1012, 1013], on the basis of Lehnert's article in Thesaurus linguae Latinae editus auctoritate et consilio Academiarum quinque Germanicarum Berolinensis Gottingensis Lipsiensis Monacensis Vindobomenensis. Vol. II, Fasc. 1, Lipsiae, 1901, col. 170, "Antin." “ἀντινομικός, – ὁ ἀνήκων εἰς (περιέχων) ἀντινομίαν, ἀντιφατικός” ( Σκαρλάτον τοῦ Βυζαντίον Λεξικόν, σ. “ἀντινομικός – ὅποιος ἀνήκει εἰς τὴν ἀντινομίαν” ( ἈνθίμουΓάζη Λεξιχόν, στ. “ἀντινομικός – pertaining to ἀντινόμία (Plutarch, II, 741D, according to the Paris edition of 1624); ἀντινομικῶς, adv. by ἀντινομία (Argum. Dem. Androt. 592)” (Sophocles, – Lexicon, p. 185). Fr. Astius, - Lexicon Platonicum, Lipsiae, 1835, Vol. I. – Herm. Bonitzt, – Index Aristotelicus, Berolini, 1870. R. Goclenius, Lexicon philosophicum, 1613, p. 110. Eg. y Cornoldi [49] and y Signoriello; not also in: Plexiacus, - Lexicon philosophicum, Hagae Comitis, 1716. Stephanus Chauvinus, – Lexicon philosophicum, novum opus, Leovardiae, 1713. Rud. Eucken, – Geschichte d. philosophischen Terminologie, Lpz. 1879. – Eisler refers to this book (Wört. d. philos. Begr., 3-te Aufl. Berlin, 1910, Bd. 1, S. 62), but I did not find this reference in Eisler. E. L. Radlov, – Philosophical Dictionary, St. Petersburg, 1904, p. 13. According to Kant, antinomies are “Widerstreit der Gesetze der reinen Vernunft” (Kr. ch. raz., B., S. 440, Kherbach – S. 340), “contradictions in which reason necessarily becomes entangled in its desire to think the unconditional, contradictions of reason with itself” (id.). – To understand Kant’s concept of antinomy, in addition to “Kr. h.r." His opus is also very important. for the prize “What real progress has metaphysics made in Germany since the time of Leibniz and Wolff?”, trans. N. [O.] Lossky (“Proceedings of S. Pet. Philosophy. Islands”, Issue VI, St. Petersburg, 1910).