Aristotelica 2

Aristotelica is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to Aristotle and Aristotelianism through the centuries with a special focus on the texts and textual traditions of Aristotle as a common intellectual background for European and Mediterranean cultures. Filling a substantial gap in existing academic journals, Aristotelica covers the works of Aristotle, with particular attention to his theoretical treatises, their textual constitution, and the entire exegetical tradition, and with an emphasis on philology as an appropriate scholarly approach to philosophical texts. The time span is from Aristotle’s contemporaries and Greek philosophical literature in Roman times, through the medieval period (Byzantine, Arabic, Latin) and Renaissance, going up to the twentieth century. The journal also considers submissions on the relevance of Aristotelianism to theoretical, epistemological, and ethical debates, as well as to fundamental questions about the establishment, definition, and development of ancient philosophy and science

L’exégèse du livre Lambda de la Métaphysique d’Aristote dans le De principiis et dans la Quaestio I.1 d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise

Le commentaire continu d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise sur le livre Lambda de la Métaphysique d’Aristote était déjà perdu au xiie siècle. Néanmoins, il exerçait toujours une influence par l’entremise du commentaire d’Averroès et de deux autres textes d’Alexandre : le traité Sur les principes de l’univers et la Quaestio I.1. Le présent article montre que ces deux derniers textes renferment chacun une section qui s’appuie sur Métaphysique Lambda, chapitres 6 et suiv., ce qui confirme le fait, ayant été établi ailleurs, que tous les textes d’Alexandre revêtent un caractère exégétique et prennent pour base les textes d’Aristote. Qui plus est, une comparaison entre le texte du chapitre Lambda et l’interprétation alexandriste permet d’apercevoir l’apport distinctif d’Alexandre à ce que la tradition a reçu comme la théologie d’Aristote. Entre autres choses, nous devons à Alexandre, ou à ses sources proches, l’idée que les cieux, étant animés, se meuvent en cercle parce qu’ils désirent imiter la parfaite quiétude du Premier Moteur. Nous devons également à Alexandre une mise en rapport détaillée de la théorie du livre Lambda avec les analyses du chapitre 8 de la Physique.Alexander of Aphrodisias’ continuous commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics book Lambda was already lost in the xiith century ad. Nevertheless, it kept exercising an influence through the commentary of Averroes and through two other texts of Alexander : the treatise On the Principles of the Universe and the (so called) Quaestio I.1. This article shows that these last two texts both contain a section based on Metaphysics Lambda, chapters 6 ff, which brings a confirmation to a fact argued elsewhere, namely, that all of Alexander’s texts bear an exegetical character and are built upon Aristotle’s texts. Furthermore, a comparison between the text of Lambda and Alexander’s interpretation allows us to see the distinctive contribution of Alexander to what has been traditionally known as Aristotle’s theology. Thus, among other things, we owe to Alexander, or to his intermediate sources, the idea that the heavens, being ensouled, are moved in a circle by their desire to imitate the First Mover in its perfect state of quietude. We also owe to Alexander an extended discussion which conflates the theory of Lambda to the related inquiries of Aristotle’s Physics VIII

Being\u2019 (\u3c4\u1f78 \u1f44\u3bd) as said of predicates in the critical text of Aristotle, Metaphysics Lambda

In this paper, I will be focusing on seeming anomalies in the use of the verb \u201cto be,\u201d as found in several passages in Metaphysics Lambda, once it is restored in a critical edition. At least a couple of times (4. 1070b25 and 7. 1072a25f.), instead of the standard subject agreement, the participle \u201cbeing\u201d shows agreement with the predicate noun. Such a peculiar feature is clearly attested in the most ancient textual witnesses, but was corrected in later Byzantine manuscripts and regarded as scribal mistakes by editors in the 19th and 20th century. In fact, the matter deserves close scrutiny

Editing Aristotle's Metaphysics: why should Harlfinger's stemma be verified?

The 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

Response: Fazzo on Golitsis on Fazzo, Il libro Lambda della Metafisica di Aristotele

One 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

Aristotle’s Theory of Causes and the Holy Trinity : New Evidence About the Chronology and Religion of Nicolaus “of Damascus”

L’identité et la datation de Nicolas le Péripatéticien, l’auteur d’un sommaire de la philosophie d’Aristote, ont fait l’objet d’un article récent de Silvia Fazzo paru dans la Revue des Études Grecques. Contre la datation courante, fondée sur l’identification de Nicolas à l’historien de grand renom Nicolas Damascène (ier siècle av. J.-C.), Fazzo a montré que Nicolas avait probablement vécu au cours de la période couvrant les iiie au ve siècles ap. J.-C., et plus problablement à l’époque de l’empereur Julien l’Apostat (361-363). Cette hypothèse trouve un appui dans un nouveau fragment en traduction hébraïque découvert par Mauro Zonta, dans lequel Nicolas cherche à expliquer la Trinité de Dieu au moyen de la doctrine aristotélicienne des causes : Dieu est un, en tant que sa substance est une, mais Dieu est également trois, puisqu’il est à la fois causes motrice, formelle et finale du monde. Dans la mesure, évidemment réduite, où un fragment si court est susceptible de datation, l’époque de Julien paraît la plus probable.The identity and chronology of Nicolaus Peripatheticus, the author of a summary of Aristotle’s philosophy, were recently discussed in a paper by Silvia Fazzo published in the Revue des Études Grecques. The usual dating, based upon the identification of Nicolaus with the famous historian Nicolaus Damascenus, places Nicolaus in the 1st century bc, but Fazzo argues that it is likely that he lived in the period ranging from the 3rd to the 5th centuries ad, and more likely, during the age of the Roman Emperor Julian (361-363 ad). This hypothesis is supported by a new fragment in Hebrew translation, discovered by Mauro Zonta, where Nicolaus gives an explanation of the Christian doctrine of God’s Trinity in terms of Aristotle’s doctrine of causes : God is one, being a single substance, but He is also three, insofar as He is the efficient, formal, and final causes of the world. As far as it is possible for such a short fragment, the authors contend that it is plausible to date it from the age of Julian

Il testo di Aristotele Metafisica Zeta 17

This paper provides a new critical edition of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Zeta 17, the concluding chapter of the book, dealing with substance as principle and cause, which is commented on in detail by Enrico Berti in the present issue of Aristotelica. The opportunity is offered to compare Fazzo’s 2015 tentative stemma codicumto the most important manuscript readings of Zeta 17. These appear to verify her stemma wherever it differs from Harlfinger’s 1979 stemma. As Frede and Patzig, in their ground-breaking 1988 German edition of book Zeta, have already argued against Jaeger’s choices in favour of ms. Ab, Laur. 87.12, in use by editors since 1823. Here it is shown that Ab cannot be proven to be independent from J’sand E’s, moreover, it is often deliberately harmonized with the surrounding commentary in the same folios of that manuscript. Sic stantibus rebus, the paraphrase by the Byzantine commentator Michael of Ephesus (early 12th c.), which surrounds Aristotle’s book Zeta in Ab, seems to be the source for several readings in Ab, above all, for the crucial, but possibly incorrect, reading διαρθρώσαντας, which is found at 1041b2 in all modern editions instead of the obscure διορθώσαντας (J, E). It also turns out that the excision of the vital concluding sentence at 1041b8 τοῦτο δ’ ἐστὶν τὸ εἶδος by Christ and Jaeger is not supported either semantically or paleographically. A new path is thus opened: alongside major projects aimed at producing comprehensive editions, a novel trend of minor bits-and-pieces editions based on very selected sources and on scholarly iudicium