Beauty, Ethics and Numbers in Boethius’ Quadrivial Treatises

The convergence of the Neoplatonic/Neopythagorean approach with the Aristotelian organization of the sciences is one of the most interesting features that characterizes the two influential mathematical treatises on On Arithmetics (De institutione arithmetica) and On Music (De institutione musica) by Severinus Boethius. Basing his reasoning on Nicomachus and Ptolemy, Boethius follows the philosophical tradition that had tried to reconcile Plato’s and Aristotle’s views. This attitude is examined in the present paper as regards Boethius’ response concerning the relation between numbers, ethics and aesthetics. His view emerges as coming out of a rather complex construction, which assigns the ethical scope of mathematics in indicating to the human mind how to correct the ratios that realize the best relationship in movements of the soul and the body. More precisely, its ethical aim is to correct the specific form of movement of human beings, that is their actions, exemplified in the way in which mathematical ratios represent the forms of government and musical ratios evoke and heal psychophysical affections. More complex, on the other hand, is the relationship between mathematics and beauty. In clear antithesis to the position taken by Augustine on the beauty of the rhythmic patterns that better represent the beauty of unity, Boethius does not relate the mathematical ratios of the consonances to an esthetical judgment by making use of the category of beauty. For him, the physical world is totally immersed in changes and movements, and this cannot but impede things from expressing the stable unity, which is required for contemplating the beautiful

En los márges de los 'Analíticos Posteriores': Roberto Grosseteste y el “Filópono Latino"

Robert Grosseteste’s utilization of Greek and Arabic Aristotelian commentators represents an intriguing aspect of his approach to Aristotle. This study centres on Grosseteste’s quotations from John Philoponus’ Commentary on Posterior Analytics, which Grosseteste employed to complement his own commentary on this Aristotelian work. After revisiting the debated medieval circulation of segments of Philoponus in connection with James of Venice’s Aristotelian translations, the article delves into the Renaissance Latin versions of Philoponus’ commentary. This includes the previously overlooked translation by Maurizio Zamberti (1516, unpublished) and the initial Venetian editions (1534, 1539, 1542). The Venetian prints were derived from an anonymous and unfamiliar Latin version that followed James of Venice’s translation and terminology. This distinctive feature, along with the marginalia referencing Lincolniensis (i.e., Grosseteste) in Philippus Theodosius’ revised text (Venice 1542), allows for a comparison of passages from Grosseteste and Philoponus to validate their correspondences. The final segment of this study investigates Grosseteste’s sparse and elusive references to Aristotle’s On the Soul in light of the possibility that they may stem from fragments of Philoponus’ commentary accompanying James of Venice’s translation of that Aristotelian work.El uso que hace Roberto Grosseteste de comentaristas aristotélicos griegos y árabes es un aspecto intrigante de su aproximación a Aristóteles. El presente estudio se centra en las referencias de Grosseteste al Comentario a los Analíticos posteriores de Juan Filópono, que Grosseteste utilizó para complementar su propio comentario a la obra aristotélica. Después de examinar la controvertida circulación medieval de partes del texto de Filópono junto con las traducciones aristotélicas de Jacobo de Venecia, el artículo profundiza en las versiones latinas renacentistas del comentario de Filópono. Estás incluyen la traducción hasta ahora inadvertida de Maurizio Zamberti (1516, sin imprimir) y las primeras ediciones venecianas (1534, 1539, 1542), basadas en una versión latina, anónima y desconocida, que siguió la traducción y la terminología de Jacobo de Venecia. Esta característica, junto con las notas marginales que se refieren al Lincolniensis (es decir, a Grosseteste) en la versión revisada de Philippus Theodosius (Venecia 1542), nos permite comparar pasajes de Grosseteste y de Filópono para verificar sus correspondencias. En la última parte del estudio se examinan las pocas y esquivas referencias de Grosseteste a Sobre el alma de Aristóteles a la luz de la posibilidad de que puedan derivar de fragmentos del comentario de Filópono que acompañó la traducción de Jacobo de Venecia de dicha obra aristótelica

Il trattato De luce di Roberto Grossatesta. Una rilettura sulla base della nuova edizione del testo

Il contributo inquadra la storiografia relativa alla cosiddetta metafisica della luce, di cui il trattato De luce di Roberto Grossatesta costituisce un testo fondamentale. La tesi del presente contributo è che questo originale trattato cosmologico costituì un momento centrale nella riflessione sul problema della causalità naturale, nel complesso percorso di approfondimento della fisica aristotelica condotto dal filosofo inglese e risolto con soluzioni diverse nei suoi scritti. Lo studio anticipa i risultati di ricerca alla quale l’autrice è pervenuta realizzando una edizione critica del testo, in pubblicazione alla data di consegna della presente relazione.The contribution outlines the historiography of the so-called ‘metaphysics of light’, whose treatise ‘On light’ by Robert Grosseteste is a fundamental text. The thesis of this paper is that this original cosmological treatise constituted a central stage in the reflection on the problem of natural causality conducted by the English philosopher and solved with different solutions in his writings, in his whole course of study on the Aristotelian physics. The paper anticipates the results of the research which the author carried on during her preparation of the critical edition of the text, in issue on the date of delivery of this report

Roberto Grossatesta, La luce. Introduzione, edizione, traduzione e commento a cura di C. Panti

Il volume costituisce il primo studio dedicato interamente a uno dei testi più celebri e originali di Roberto Grossatesta, il De luce (1225 circa), presentando l'edizione critica del trattato con nuova traduzione italiana a fronte e approfondito e articolato commento critico. L'ampia introduzione propone uno studio complessivo della filosofia naturale e dell'ontologia della luce di Grossatesta e un'indagine sulla datazione, fonti e fortuna dell'opera, centrata sull'idea cardine della cosiddetta 'metafisica della luce', per cui la luce è principio causale e forma prima del corpo. Questa tesi ontologica, che Grossatesta utilizza come fondamento della sua cosmologia e dell'indagine matematica della realtà, rende il testo un unicum nella tradizione filosofica medievale.The volume is the first study devoted entirely to one of the most famous and original texts by Robert Grosseteste, the De light (1225c.), presenting the critical edition of the treatise with a new Italian translation, and an in-depth and detailed critical comment. The extensive introduction offers a comprehensive study of Grosseteste's natural philosophy and ontology of light and a survey on dating, sources and fortune of the work, centered on the pivotal thesis of the so-called 'metaphysics of light', for which light is the causal principle and first form of body. This ontological thesis, which Grosseteste uses as the basis of his cosmology and mathematical investigation of reality, makes the text unique along the medieval philosophical tradition

Arti liberali e arti meccaniche fra sapientia, natura e scientia nei libri I e II del Didascalicon di Ugo di San Vittore (e nei commenti di Boezio all’Isagoge)

Il saggio esamina i primi due libri del Didascalicon relativamente al fondamento teoretico che giustifica la divisione della filosofia nelle sue ramificazioni, la funzione delle arti liberali e l'inserimento delle arti mecaniche. E' messo in evidenza l'apporto dei commenti boeziani all'Isagoge nella riflessione complessiva su questa tematica.The essay examines the first two books of Hugh's Didascalicon relative to the theoretical foundation that justifies the division of philosophy in its ramifications, the function of the liberal arts and the integration of the mechanical arts. The inquiry highlights the contribution of the Boethian comments on the Isagoge in the overall reflection by Hugh on this issue