110 research outputs found
Response: Fazzo on Golitsis on Fazzo, Il libro Lambda della Metafisica di Aristotele
No full textOne peculiar feature of Golitsis’ review (BMCR 2013), apart from the fact that he does not argue for his views (which makes discussion difficult), is that I have hardly expressed any opinions he opposes, either in the book under consideration or in my 2010 article. Golitsis especially insists on dating and on chronological hypotheses. However, his “objections” are themselves open to rather severe criticisms on other grounds, especially since they deal with what I take to be crucial matters that require special care. Golitsis has, e.g., a 12th c. text (Michael of Ephesus commentary on Metaphysics Lambda) in a manuscript (Laur. 87.12) which he claims to be copied during the 11th c.; he also claims a 10th c. manuscript (Paris. gr. 1853) to be the exemplar of a 9th. c. one (Vind. phil. gr. 100). And so on and so forth. On the other hand, there is no sign he has analytically considered the main content of the book he is reviewing
Fazzo S. e Zonta M. “Toward a « critical translation » of Alexander of Aphrodisias’ De principiis, based on the indirect tradition of Syriac and Arabic sources
No full textNicolas, l'auteur du Sommaire de la philosophie d'Aristote : doutes sur son identité, sa datation, son origine
No full textThe paper discusses the attribution of the compendium De Philosophia Aristotelis to Nicolaus of Damascus the general historian (fl. : end 1st c. BC). By contrast, there are reasons to believe that the work was written by a Peripatetic Nicolaus between the 3rd and the 6th century, most likely from Syria in the 4th c. AD. Among the consequences : one piece of evidence for interest in a wide range of Aristotle's works already in the 1st century BC-lst century AD is removed ; the supposedly earliest evidence for Metaphysics as the title of Aristotle's work is moved to a later date ; the idea that Peripatetic activity more or less ceased with Alexander, Thémistius being the only exception, is weakened by another counter-example. On the contrary, a distinctively Peripatetic culture must have been still alive in Themistius' and Nicolas' time, when special tools were produced both for teaching activity and for the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to later eras.L'article discute l'attribution du sommaire De Philosophia Aristotelis à Nicolas le Damascène l'historien (fl. : fin Ier s. av. J.-C). Il existe des raisons de penser que cela fut l'ouvrage d'un Péripatéticien nommé Nicolas entre le IIIe et le VIe siècle, plus probablement en Syrie autour du IVe siècle de notre ère. Ainsi, la preuve d'un intérêt pour une large partie du corpus d'Aristote dès le Ier siècle av. J.-C, ou début du Ier s. après J.-C, disparaît, ainsi que l'occurrence de Métaphysique comme titre d'un ouvrage d'Aristote déjà à cette époque. En revanche, l'idée que l'activité de l'école péripatéticienne s'arrête avec Alexandre d'Aphrodise, et que Thémistius au IVe siècle serait la seule exception est affaiblie par un autre exemple à côté de Thémistius. En fait, une culture aristotélicienne doit avoir été encore très vivante à l'époque de Thémistius et de Nicolas, lorsque des outils de travail scolaire furent produits pour l'activité d'enseignement et pour la transmission de la philosophie d'Aristote aux époques plus tardives.Fazzo Silvia. Nicolas, l'auteur du Sommaire de la philosophie d'Aristote : doutes sur son identité, sa datation, son origine. In: Revue des Études Grecques, tome 121, fascicule 1, Janvier-juin 2008. pp. 99-126
Editing Aristotle's "Metaphysics": why should Harlfinger's stemma be verified?
No full textThe textual transmission of Aristotle’s Metaphysics is currently described by Dieter Harlfinger’s stemma codicum. It appeared in 1979 within the acts of the 1972 Symposium Aristotelicum.1 With a single exception, the stemma has been accepted by scholars without discussion, or with minor relevances only. On the other side, at least until 2009 no stemmatically- based edition of a single book of the Metaphysics appeared. Still today, no new general edition is available. We are thus still left with Jaeger’s 1957 OCT – admittedly, an editio minor, which partly depends on Ross’ 1924 critical apparatus and textual choices.
But things are evolving now, as we are about to see: this crucial theory and practice – editing Aristotle’s Metaphysics –is moving today faster than it has since the 19th century. Hence the interest in promoting a broader and a more articulated discussion, by pointing out some basic desiderata, which show the need for the subject to be taken into consideration anew
Heavenly matter in Aristotle, Metaphysics Lambda 2
No full textIn Aristotle's Metaphysics Lambda 1, at 1069a32, there is a program for research about elements of heavenly bodies. This passage has been neglected by scholars, and the Greek text crucially modified by editors. But it is possible to preserve the manuscript reading and to show how the program is soon answered in Lambda 2 1069b24-26, which talks about the peculiar kind of matter that heavenly bodies have: it is not matter sensu stricto, since it comes to be only "pothen poi," "from-one-place-to-another". The suggested analysis shows that "pothen" and "poi" do not need to mark a pair of contraries, a form and its privation. This allows for an agreement with Theta 8’s denial that eternal things can have matter as their own substance. It also allows for an understanding of how Aristotle can imply in Lambda 10 1075b13-14 that he—unlike his predecessors—has successfully responded to the 10th aporia of Beta
Philology and Philosophy on the Margins of Early Printed Editions of the Ancient Greek Commentators on Aristotle, with special reference to copies held in the Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense, Milan
No full textAristotle’s Metaphysics Lambda. Annotated Critical Edition Based upon a Systematic Investigation of Greek, Latin, Arabic and Hebrew Sources by Stefan Alexandru
No full text
- …
