DOCSLIB.ORG

Alexander of Aphrodisias and the Text of Aristotle's Metaphysics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alexander of Aphrodisias and the Text of Aristotle's Metaphysics Alexander of Aphrodisias and the Text of Aristotle’s Metaphysics CALIFORNIA CLASSICAL STUDIES NUMBER 4 Editorial Board Chair: Donald Mastronarde Editorial Board: Alessandro Barchiesi, Todd Hickey, Emily Mackil, Richard Martin, Robert Morstein-Marx, J. Theodore Peña, Kim Shelton California Classical Studies publishes peer-reviewed long-form scholarship with online open access and print-on-demand availability. The primary aim of the series is to disseminate basic research (editing and analysis of primary materials both textual and physical), data-heavy re- search, and highly specialized research of the kind that is either hard to place with the leading publishers in Classics or extremely expensive for libraries and individuals when produced by a leading academic publisher. In addition to promoting archaeological publications, papyrolog- ical and epigraphic studies, technical textual studies, and the like, the series will also produce selected titles of a more general profile. The startup phase of this project (2013–2015) is supported by a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. The current volume has been selected by the Editorial Board as the winner of the 2014 CCS competition to identify distinguished work by junior scholars. Also in the series: Number 1: Leslie Kurke, The Traffic in Praise: Pindar and the Poetics of Social Economy, 2013 Number 2: Edward Courtney, A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal, 2013 Number 3: Mark Griffith, Greek Satyr Play: Five Studies, 2015 ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS AND THE TEXT OF ARISTOTLE’S METAPHYSICS Mirjam E. Kotwick CALIFORNIA CLASSICAL STUDIES Berkeley, California © 2016 by Mirjam E. Kotwick. California Classical Studies c/o Department of Classics University of California Berkeley, California 94720–2520 USA http://calclassicalstudies.org email: [email protected] ISBN 9781939926067 Library of Congress Control Number: 2015953938 CONTENTS Acknowledgments ix Sigla and Abbreviations xi 1. Introduction 1 2. The Transmission of Alexander’s Metaphysics Commentary 20 2.1 The authentic part of the commentary (books A–Δ) 20 2.2 The Greek manuscripts and the modern editions of the commentary 23 2.3 The Latin translation by Sepúlveda 26 2.4 The so-called recensio altera 28 2.5 The Arabic fragments of the commentary on book Λ 29 3. Alexander’s Commentary as a Witness to the Metaphysics Text 33 3.1 Preliminary considerations: How many Metaphysics exemplars did Alexander use? 34 3.2 The evidence in the lemmata 38 3.3 The evidence in the quotations 50 3.4 The evidence in the paraphrase and the critical discussion 55 3.5 Alexander’s sources for the Metaphysics Text 60 3.5.1 Aspasius? Others? 60 vi CONTENTS 3.5.2 Did Alexander know readings from ωαβ? 70 3.5.2.1 Alex. In Metaph. 354.28–355.5 on Arist. Metaph. Δ 3, 1014a26–31 70 3.5.2.2 Alex. Fr. 12 Freudenthal (Averroes, Lām 1481) on Arist. Metaph. Λ 3, 1070a18–19 75 3.5.2.3 Alex. In Metaph. 137.2–5; 138.24–28 on Arist. Metaph. α 1, 993a29–b2 78 3.5.2.4 Alex. In Metaph. 169.4–11 on Arist. Metaph. α 3, 995a12–19 83 3.6 Alexander’s distinction between variants and conjectures 89 4. Alexander’s Text (ωAL) and the Direct Transmission (ωαβ) 99 4.1 Separative errors in ωαβ against ωAL 99 4.1.1 Alex. In Metaph. 174.5–6; 25–27 on Arist. Metaph. α 3, 995a12–20 101 4.1.2 Alex. In Metaph. 264.28–35; 265.6–9 on Arist. Metaph. Γ 3, 1005a19–23 105 4.1.3 Alex. In Metaph. 220.1–4 on Arist. Metaph. B 4, 1000a26–32 112 4.1.4 Alex. In Metaph. 204.23–31 on Arist. Metaph. B 3, 998b14–19 121 4.2 Separative errors in ωAL against ωαβ 124 4.2.1 Alex. In Metaph. 11.3–6 on Arist. Metaph. A 2, 982a19–25 124 4.2.2 Alex. In Metaph. 167.7–14 on Arist. Metaph. α 3, 994b32–995a3 126 4.2.3 Alex. In Metaph. 273.20–26; 34–274.2 on Arist. Metaph. Γ 4, 1006a18–24 13o 4.2.4 Alex. In Metaph. 228.29–229.1 on Arist. Metaph. B 5, 1001b26–28 134 4.3 ωAL as criterion for priority in cases of divergence between α and β 138 4.3.1 Separative errors in α against β + ωAL 140 4.3.1.1 Alex. In Metaph. 299.5–9 on Arist. Metaph. Γ 4, 1008b12–19 140 4.3.1.2 Alex. In Metaph. 419.25–420.3 on Arist. Metaph. Δ 22, 1022b32–36 146 4.3.1.3 Alex. In Metaph. 257.7–16 on Arist. Metaph. Γ 2, 1004a31–b3 153 4.3.2 Separative errors in β against α + ωAL 157 4.3.2.1 Alex. In Metaph. 292.13–16 on Arist. Metaph. Γ 4, 1007b 29–1008a2 157 4.3.2.2 Alex. In Metaph. 182.32–38 on Arist. Metaph. B 2, 996a 29–996b1 161 CONTENTS vii 4.3.2.3 Alex. In Metaph. 303.23–29 on Arist. Metaph. Γ 5, 1009a22–28 164 4.3.3 Reconstruction of an ωαβ-reading from ωAL and two differently corrupted readings in α and β: Alex. In Metaph. 329.33–330.8 on Arist. Metaph. Γ 7, 1011b35–1012a1 167 5. Contamination of the Direct Transmission by Alexander’s Commentary 178 5.1 Contamination of ωαβ by Alexander’s comments 178 5.1.1 Alex. In Metaph. 206.9–12 on Arist. Metaph. B 3, 998b22–28 178 5.1.2 Alex. In Metaph. 438.14–17 on Arist. Metaph. Δ 30, 1025a21–25 187 5.1.3 Alex. In Metaph. 372.10–17 on Arist. Metaph. Δ 7, 1017a35–b6 191 5.1.4 Alex. In Metaph. 164.15–165.5 on Arist. Metaph. α 2, 994b21–27 198 5.1.5 Alex. Fr. 12 Freudenthal (Averroes, Lām 1481–82) on Arist. Metaph. Λ 3, 1070a13–19 200 5.2 Contamination of β by Alexander’s comments 207 5.2.1 Alex. In Metaph. 421.7–15 on Arist. Metaph. Δ 23, 1023a 17–21 208 5.2.2 Alex. In Metaph. 285.32–36; 286.2–6 on Arist. Metaph. Γ 4, 1007a20–23 212 5.2.3 Alex. In Metaph. 262.37–263.5 on Arist. Metaph. Γ 2, 1005a2–8 219 5.2.4 Alex. In Metaph. 144.15–145.8 on Arist. Metaph. α 1, 993b19–23 224 5.2.5 Alex. In Metaph. 31.27–32.9 on Arist. Metaph. A 3, 984b8–13 230 5.2.6 Alex. In Metaph. 295.29–32 on Arist. Metaph. Γ 4, 1008a18–27 235 5.3 Contamination of α by Alexander’s comments 241 5.3.1 Alex. In Metaph. 26.14–18 on Arist. Metaph. A 3, 983b33–984a3 242 5.3.2 Alex. In Metaph. 38.5–7 on Arist. Metaph. A 5, 985b23–29 245 5.3.3 Alex. In Metaph. 33.17–19; 23–26 on Arist. Metaph. A 4, 985a4–10 249 5.3.4 Alex. In Metaph. 67.20–68.4 on Arist. Metaph. Α 8, 989a22–26 254 5.3.5 Alex. In Metaph. 380.25–30; 381.1–4 on Arist. Metaph. Δ 10, 1018a20–25 259 5.4 Contamination of β by ωAL or of α by Alexander’s report of a varia lectio? 266 5.4.1 Alex. In Metaph. 347.19–25; 348.5–8 on Arist. Metaph. Δ 1, 1013a17–23 266 5.4.2 Alex. In Metaph. 145.8–12; 19–146.4 on Arist. Metaph. α 1, 993b19–23 271 viii CONTENTS 6. Results 279 Appendices A. A Diagram of the Ancient Greek Tradition of the Metaphysics 282 B. Lemmata in Alexander’s commentary 283 C. Quotations from the Metaphysics in Alexander’s commentary 293 D. Alexander’s paraphrase in cases of α-/β-divergences 313 Bibliography 323 Index Locorum 335 General Index 337 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study is a translated (from the German) and revised version of my disserta- tion, which was accepted in February 2014 by the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universi- tät Munich, Germany. First of all I want to thank my doctoral adviser, Professor Oliver Primavesi, who introduced me to the study of the transmission of Aristotle’s Metaphysics and generously shared with me his broad experience, his deep learning, and his masterful skill. The training I received through participation in his project of a new critical edition of Metaphysics A was tremendous, yet the learning I acquired through my time as his assistant reached far beyond that. During my work on this study I could draw from a variety of sources that Pro- fessor Primavesi generously made available to me. The Greek text of Aristotle’s Metaphysics used in the present study is based on the new collations that were produced by Dr. Pantelis Golitsis and Ingo Steinel (Aristoteles-Archiv, Berlin) on behalf of Professor Primavesi and funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemein- schaft. The Greek text of Alexander’s commentary I used in my dissertation was based on the editions by Bonitz (1847) and Hayduck (1891), the manuscript Lau- rentianus plut. 85,1 (= O), and the Latin translation by Sepúlveda (1527). A digital copy of ms. O was made available to me by Professor Primavesi and through the funding of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Pantelis Golitsis, who is currently preparing a new critical edition of the authentic parts of Alexander’s commentary, checked against all extant Greek manuscripts the Greek text of all those passages that function as evidence in this study (in other words, those pas- sages that are quoted in Greek and followed by an English translation in the body of the page).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Aristotelian Metaphysics: Essence and Ground
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto Editorial Aristotelian Metaphysics: Essence and Ground Riin Sirkela, Tuomas Tahkob aDepartment of Philosophy, University of Vermont bDepartment of Philosophy, University of Helsinki is special issue of Studia Philosophica Estonica centers around Aristotelian metaphysics, construed broadly to cover both scholarly research on Aristo- tle’s metaphysics as well as work by contemporary metaphysicians on Aris- totelian themes. Aristotelian metaphysics is a growing tradition. ere are increasingly more metaphysicians identifying themselves as ‘Aristotelians’, and there are more scholars looking at work in contemporary metaphysics to advance scholarship. Indeed, there have already been a number of vol- umes showcasing this ‘Aristotelian turn’, including Daniel D. Novotný’s and Lukáš Novák’s Aristotelian Perspectives in Metaphysics (óþÕ¦), Edward Feser’s Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics (óþÕì), and Tuomas Tahko’s Contempo- rary Aristotelian Metaphysics (óþÕó). e contribution this special issue makes to the ongoing discussion is twofold. First, the special issue promotes a deeper interaction between schol- ars of Aristotle and contemporary metaphysicians. We hope that the pa- pers encourage people working in the history of philosophy to relate to con- temporary discussions and people working in contemporary metaphysics to engage with Aristotle and Ancient scholarship. Second, the special issue is unied in its focus on two themes in Aristotelian metaphysics, essence and grounding. e papers address questions concerning fundamentality and dependence, ontological independence or priority, the causal priority of forms, the unity of grounding, the reduction of grounding to essence, the unity of essence, the roles of essence, and explanation and denition.
    [Show full text]
  • Hendrik Lorenz/Benjamin Morison Aristotle: Metaphysics Z PHI501, Fall/Spring 2018/2019
    Hendrik Lorenz/Benjamin Morison Aristotle: Metaphysics Z PHI501, Fall/Spring 2018/2019 Aims of the course In this class, we aim to go through systematically the 17 chapters of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, book Z (sometimes called book VII), and chapter 1 of book H of the Metaphysics (the one immediately following Z), since we hold, as do many other scholars, that it is best read as a continuation of book Z. The goal is to understand Aristotle’s famous theory of ‘substance’ as presented in book Z. Substances are the central items in Aristotle’s ontology, and there are a cluster of other notions in the vicinity of ‘substance’ which we will also be trying to clarify: ‘being’, ‘account’, ‘form’, ‘this’, ‘subject’, ‘matter’, ‘essence’ or ‘being what it is’, etc. We also want to assess what kind of treatise Metaphysics Z is: its train of thought is notoriously hard to follow, with apparent digressions, or even insertions, so it might not even have been considered a unified treatise by Aristotle. There is also the question of its relation to the science of metaphysics: is it a preliminary contribution to it, or an actual exposition of (a fragment of) it? Is there even a science of metaphysics (in the sense of ‘science’ defined in the Posterior Analytics) to which it could be related? Brief list of some themes of Metaphysics Z Fall: Z1: Being is said in many ways; the central one is being as substance; so the question ‘what is being’ is the question ‘what is substance?’; Z2: Catalogue of some items which philosophers have thought count as substances;
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Guide to Philo Other Books by Kenneth Schenck from Westminster John Knox Press
    A Brief Guide to Philo Other books by Kenneth Schenck from Westminster John Knox Press Understanding the Book of Hebrews A BRIEF GUIDE TO PHILO Kenneth Schenck WESTMINSTER |C»iNKNOXmESS W[K UMTeVfiJLE • KENTUCKY © 2005 Kenneth Schenck AU rights reserved. No ^art of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic Or mechanical, including photocopyii^ recording, or by any infor• mation storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Westminster John Knox Press, 100 Witherspoon Street, Louisville, Kentucl^r 40202-1396. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are die authors. Scripture quotations marked NRSV are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Divi• sion of Christian Education of the National G)uncil of the Churches of Christ in die U.S A, and are used by permission. Scripture quotations marked RSV are fix)m the Revised Standard Version of die Bible, copyright © 1946,1952,1971, and 1973 by die Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S A, and are used by permission. Book design by Sharon Adams Cover design by Mark Abrams First edition Pubhshed by Westminster John Knox Press Louisville, Kentucky This book is printed on acid-free paper that meets the American National Standards Instimte Z39.48 standard. © PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 — 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Catalogiiig-in-Publication Data Schenck, Kenneth A brief guide to Philo / Kenneth Schenck— 1st ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Empedocles: Neurophilosophy and Neurosciences- Prophecy and Reality
    Journal of Neurology & Stroke Empedocles: Neurophilosophy and Neurosciences- Prophecy and Reality Keywords Editorial Volume 1 Issue 6 - 2014 Empedocles; Neurosciences; Neurophilosophy; Mitochondria; Limbic system; Amygdala Stavros J. Baloyannis* Editorial Aristotelian University, Greece *Corresponding author: Neurosciences are extended into a broad field, where the Stavros J. Baloyannis, Department scientific observation and research join harmoniously the of Emeritus, Aristotelian University, Thessaloniki, Angelaki 5, Greece,Received: Tel: +302310270434; Email:| Published: imagination, the intuition, the philosophy, the critic analysis, 2014 the enthusiasm and the skepticism, opening new horizons in the October 01, 2014 October 06, Fromtheoretic the perspectivesEra of Pre-Socratic and offering philosophers, new motivations soul and for mind research, have on the bases of an advanced multi-dimensional intellectuality. meditation [1]. Questions that the human being posed to himself, emotions, the feelings and the social behavior of the human being. been the subject of continuous speculation, study, research and soul in order to discover the interior power which motivates the concerning the existence, the soul, the psychosomatic entity, the regulatesHe tried to and identify controls the mainall the pivots spectrum of the of emotional the human interactions. emotions. cognition, the knowledge of the world, and the perception of time He insisted that Love and Strife are the ends of an axis, which and space used to exercise always an existential anxiety. According to Empedocles there is not birth or coming into Very frequently, human emotions have been the foci of existence and death. There is only a connection or mixture and insisting endeavors for right interpretation and detailed analysis. separation of four pure fundamental elements or “roots”, which Reasonably, the importance of the mental activities and interior are “the earth”, “the air”, “the fire” and “the water”.
    [Show full text]
  • The Place of Ethics in Aristotle's Philosophy
    Offprint from OXFORDSTUDIES INANCIENT PHILOSOPHY EDITOR:BRADINWOOD VOLUMEXL Essays in Memory of Michael Frede JAMESALLEN EYJÓLFURKJALAREMILSSON WOLFGANG-RAINERMANN BENJAMINMORISON 3 THEPLACEOFETHICSIN ARISTOTLE’SPHILOSOPHY GEORGEKARAMANOLIS . The issue D the wealth of studies on Aristotle’s ethics, there has been almost nothing, as far as I know, dedicated to considering the place that ethics occupies in Aristotle’s philosophy. This issue does not seem to be interesting to modern students of Aristotle. There was, however, a debate and indeed a controversy about this issue in late antiquity, as I shall show in this paper. There are two questions in- volved here, which are interrelated, and the debate was about both of them. The first concerns the order in which ethics or practical philosophy, more generally, must be studied by the student of Aris- totle’s philosophy. The second concerns the relative significance of this part of philosophy within the framework of Aristotle’s philoso- phical work. Both questions arise from remarks that Aristotle himself makes. The second in particular, some might argue, is addressed by Aris- totle in various parts of his work. In Metaphysics Ε –, for instance, he famously discusses the relative value of theoretical, practical, and productive sciences. Aristotle there argues explicitly that the the- oretical sciences are preferable (hairetōterai) to all others, practical © George Karamanolis It is a pleasure to offer this contribution in honour of Michael Frede, who taught me so much. Drafts of this paper were presented at Princeton, Oxford, and the Department of Theory and Philosophy of Science, University of Athens. I have benefited from the comments of all these audiences.
    [Show full text]
  • Dan Beachy-Quick Anaximander of Miletus, Son of Prixiades…
    In the deserts of the heart Let the healing fountain start, In the prison of his days Teach the free man how to praise FREE W.H. Auden POETRY Dan Beachy-Quick Anaximander Free Poetry publishes essays and poetry by today’s leading poets. These chapbooks are available free of Vol. 15 No. 5 April 2020 charge and without copyright. The editor encourages the reproduction of this chapbook and its free distribution, ad infinitum. For further information please contact the editor at: [email protected] Anaximander (trans. by) Dan Beachy-Quick Anaximander of Miletus, son of Prixiades… Anaximander, friend of Thales, and fellow citizen… Anaximander of Miletus, son of Priaxides, whose mind Thales birthed, his student and his successor… Diodorus of Ephesus, writing about Anaximander, says that he affected a tragic pomp (like a goat-skin swollen with wine) and donned clothes to look like holy man. 1 Eratosthenes says, and Hecataeus of Miletus agrees, that Homer and Anaximander were the first two to publish books on Geography. …among the Greeks of whom we know, he was the first to bring forth, from hard toil, a book on the nature of Nature. Like a child left waiting in a field, he wrote down a summary of his principle thoughts, which somehow Apollodorus of Athens happened to find. 2 He wrote , , ​On Nature​ ​The Wandering Earth​ ​Of​ ​the Constant Sources (in sequential order) , and one other book. ​ ​ Stars, Spheres​ 1. Diogenes Laertius 26. Aëtius 2. Strabo 27. Aëtius 3. Theophrastus 28. Aëtius 4. Diogenes Laertius 29. Aëtius 5. Strabo 30. Eudemus 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Aspasian Infidelities. on Aspasius' Philosophical Background (EN I)
    apeiron 2016; 49(2): 229–259 António Pedro Mesquita* Aspasian Infidelities. On Aspasius’ Philosophical Background (EN I) DOI 10.1515/apeiron-2015-0028 Abstract: The discussion on Aspasius’ philosophical background has benefited in recent years from a wide consensus. According to this consensus, Aspasius should be regarded as a Peripatetic, or even as an “orthodox Peripatetic” (Barnes’ phrase). It is true that Aspasius’ commentary is generally in tune with Aristotle. It is true that he shows an extensive knowledge of Aristotelian research pertinent for the discussions and that he uses Aristotelian concepts, principles, and doctrines with ease as if they were his own, thus denoting an old assimila- tion of those materials and a long accommodation to them. In a word, it is true that Aspasius is an Aristotelian. He is, however, as I will try to show in this paper, an Aristotelian strongly influenced by Stoicism. I will do so by selecting those points from Aspasius’ commentary on book I of the Nicomachean Ethics where the Stoic influence is most flagrantly evident, namely in his interpretation of art (τέχνη), his conception of continence and incontinence and, especially, his interpretation of the relation between happiness, virtue, and external goods in Aristotle. Keywords: Aspasius, Aristotelianism, Stoicism, happiness, virtue, external goods The Consensus The discussion on Aspasius’ philosophical background has benefited in recent years from a wide consensus. A good example of this consensus is the position Barnes sustains on the matter in his excellent “Introduction to Aspasius”, where he states the following1: Next, Aspasius’ philosophical position. Galen calls him a Peripatetic, and it is plain that his pupil taught Galen Peripatetic philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • From Hades to the Stars: Empedocles on the Cosmic Habitats of Soul', Classical Antiquity, Vol
    Edinburgh Research Explorer From Hades to the stars Citation for published version: Trepanier, S 2017, 'From Hades to the stars: Empedocles on the cosmic habitats of soul', Classical Antiquity, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 130-182. https://doi.org/10.1525/ca.2017.36.1.130 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1525/ca.2017.36.1.130 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Published In: Classical Antiquity Publisher Rights Statement: Published as Trépanier, S. 2017. From Hades to the Stars: Empedocles on the Cosmic Habitats of Soul, Classical Antiquity, Vol. 36 No. 1, April 2017; (pp. 130-182) DOI: 10.1525/ca.2017.36.1.130. © 2017 by the Regents of the University of California. Authorization to copy this content beyond fair use (as specified in Sections 107 and 108 of the U. S. Copyright Law) for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by the Regents of the University of California for libraries and other users, provided that they are registered with and pay the specified fee via Rightslink® or directly with the Copyright Clearance Center. General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Heraclitus Anecdote: De Partibus Animalium I 5.645A17-23
    Ancient Philosophy 21 (2001) ©Mathesis Publications 1 The Heraclitus Anecdote: De Partibus Animalium i 5.645a17-23 Pavel Gregoric Chapter 5 of the first book of Aristotle’s De Partibus Animalium contains a short self-contained treatise (644b22-645a36) which has been characterised as a ‘protreptic to the study of animals’ (Peck in Aristotle 1937, 97). Such a charac- terisation of the treatise may be misleading, because Aristotle does not seem to have composed it in order to motivate his audience to go out in the field and study animals, but rather to kindle their interest in the scientific account of ani- mals which he is about to provide. It is reasonable to suppose that Aristotle’s audience, eager to learn something valuable and dignified, needed an explanation of why they should like to hear, amongst other animals, about sponges, snails, grubs, and other humble creatures which are displeasing even to look at, not to mention witnessing the dissections that might have accompanied Aristotle’s lec- tures on animals (cf. Bonitz 1870, 104a4-17; Lloyd 1978). Aristotle explains why such ignoble animals deserve a place in a scientific account of animals and he illustrates that with an anecdote about Heraclitus. So one must not be childishly repelled by the examination of the humbler animals. For in all things of nature there is some- thing wonderful. And just as Heraclitus is said to have spoken to the visitors who wanted to meet him and who stopped as they were approaching when they saw him warming himself by the oven (e‰don aÈtÚn yerÒmenon prÚw t“ fipn“)—he urged them to come in without fear (§k°leue går aÈtoÁw efisi°nai yarroËntaw), for there were gods there too (e‰nai går ka‹ §ntaËya yeoÊw)—so one must approach the inquiry about each animal without aversion, since in all of them there is something natural and beautiful.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography
    Comp. by: C. Vijayakumar Stage : Revises1 ChapterID: 0002195881 Date:30/10/ 14 Time:14:12:02 Filepath://ppdys1122/BgPr/OUP_CAP/IN/Process/ 0002195881.3d243 OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, 30/10/2014, SPi Bibliography Accattino, P. (1985). Alessandro di Afrodisia e Aristotele di Mitelene. Elenchos 6, 67–74. Ackrill, J. L. (1962). Critical Notice: Die Aristotelische Syllogistik. By Gün- ther Patzig. Mind, 71, 107–17. Ackrill, J. L. (1963). Aristotle: Categories and De Interpretatione. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ackrill, J. L. (1997). Essays on Plato and Aristotle. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Adamson, P. (2005). On Knowledge of Particulars. Proceedings of the Aris- totelian Society, 105, 257–78. Adamson, P. (2007a). Knowledge of Universals and Particulars in the Bagh- dad School. Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale, 18, 141–64. Adamson, P. (2007b). Al-Kindī. New York: Oxford University Press. Adamson, P., Baltussen, H., and Stone, M. W. F. (eds). (2004). Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic, and Latin Commentaries. London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London. Adamson, P., and Taylor, R. C. (eds). (2005). The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Algra, K. A., van der Horst, P. W., and Runia, D. T. (eds). (1996). Polyhistor: Studies in the History and Historiography of Ancient Philosophy Presented to Jaap Mansfeld on his Sixtieth Birthday. Leiden: Brill. Allen, J. (2005). The Stoics on the Origin of Language and the Foundations of Etymology. In D. Frede and B. Inwood (eds), Language and Learning: Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Age, pp. 14–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Allen, R.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotelianism in the First Century BC
    CHAPTER 5 Aristotelianism in the First Century BC Andrea Falcon 1 A New Generation of Peripatetic Philosophers The division of the Peripatetic tradition into a Hellenistic and a post- Hellenistic period is not a modern invention. It is already accepted in antiquity. Aspasius speaks of an old and a new generation of Peripatetic philosophers. Among the philosophers who belong to the new generation, he singles out Andronicus of Rhodes and Boethus of Sidon.1 Strabo adopts a similar division. He too distinguishes between the older Peripatetics, who came immediately after Theophrastus, and their successors.2 He collectively describes the latter as better able to do philosophy in the manner of Aristotle (φιλοσοφεῖν καὶ ἀριστοτελίζειν). It remains unclear what Strabo means by doing philosophy in the manner of Aristotle.3 But he certainly thinks that the philosophers who belong to the new generation, and not those who belong to the old one, deserve the title of true Aristotelians. For Strabo, the event separating the old from the new Peripatos is the rediscovery and publication of Aristotle’s writings. We may want to resist Strabo’s negative characterization of the earlier Peripatetics. For Strabo, they were not able to engage in philosophy in any seri- ous way but were content to declaim general theses.4 This may be an unfair judgment, ultimately based on the anachronistic assumption that any serious philosophy requires engagement with an authoritative text.5 Still, the empha- sis that Strabo places on the rediscovery of Aristotle’s writings suggests that the latter were at the center of the critical engagement with Aristotle in the 1 Aspasius, On Aristotle’s Ethics 44.20–45.16.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Testimony on the Platonist Gaius
    A New Testimony on the Platonist Gaius Michele Trizio PART FROM a single Delphic inscription (FD III.4 103), the testimonia of the life and work of second-century AMiddle Platonist Gaius fall into two classes.1 The first includes first-hand observations of later philosophers up to Proclus: Porphyry, for instance, reports that Gaius was one of several authors read regularly by Plotinus’ entourage.2 Galen tells us that he followed the classes of two of Gaius’ pupils in Pergamum and Smyrna respectively.3 As to Proclus, he twice mentions Gaius, among other Platonists, in his commentaries on the Republic and the Timaeus.4 The second class of testimonia includes statements concerning Gaius’ scholarship on Plato in three important Greek MSS. The first of these, Paris.gr. 1962, is a ninth-century MS. of the so-called ‘philosophical collection’, which, among others entries, contains a pinax at f. 146v men- tioning ᾿Αλβίνου τῶν Γαίου σχολῶν ὑποτυπώσεων πλατωνικῶν δογµάτων. That is to say, Albinus’ edition of Gaius’ scholia on 1 On Gaius and the related bibliography see J. Whittaker, “Gaius,” in R. Goulet (ed.), Dictionnaire de philosophes antiques III (Paris 2000) 437–440. All testimonia on Gaius are collected and discussed with reference to previous literature in A. Gioè, Filosofi medioplatonici del II secolo d.c. (Naples 2002). 2 V.Plot. 14, ed. P. Henry and H.-R. Schwyzer, Plotini opera I (Leiden 1951) 19.10–14. 3 De propriorum animi 41, ed. W. de Boer (CMG V.4.1.1, Leipzig 1937); Libr.propr. 2.1, ed. V. Boudon-Millot (Paris 2007).
    [Show full text]