Chiara Militello

In his 2013 monograph on Structure and Method in Aristotle’s Meteorologica, Malcolm Wilson has shown both that Aristotle conceived of meteorological phenomena as analogous to the bodily processes of animals, and that for the Stagirite the sublunar world should not be seen as a single body, but rather as composed of many different individuals. However, Wilson did not articulate the relationship between these two theories—that is, he did not answer the following question: how is it possible for the Earth to behave like an animal if it is not a single body? This paper argues that the answer to this question lies in the Aristotelian statement about the different paschein of the Earth and animals. In fact, in the chapter of Meteorology dedicated to climatic changes (1.14), Aristotle, after comparing such changes to the maturing and ageing of living organisms, states that ‘only, in the case of the bodies of plants and animals being affected does not occur in each part separately, but it is necessary for the being to mature and decay all at once, whereas in the case of the Earth this occurs in each part separately, due to cooling and warming’ (351a.28-31). In his commentary, Alexander of Aphrodisias reiterates that the difference between the changes of the Earth and those of living organisms concern the way in which these different subjects undergo affections (pathê). The concept of paschein/pathos is thus fundamental to understanding how Aristotle conceives of biological analogies, which play a key role in his meteorology: as the affections of maturing and corruption show, parallels with organic processes can be found in meteorological phenomena, but always at the level of the individual parts of the Earth. Although the sublunary world can be understood in organic terms, this world is not a ‘cosmic animal’, but rather a multiplicity of ‘regional animals’. To corroborate this thesis, this paper addresses several related questions, including: the mechanics ofenvironmental changes according to Aristotle; the differences between the regions of the Earth; the lexicon used in Meteorology to refer to the transformations of the Earth; the personal notes that Alexander adds to Aristotle’s discussion. Finally, the first modern translation of the relevant section of Alexander’s commentary is also provided here.

Le volume rassemble 25 études concernant la cosmologie médiévale, abordée à travers ses diverses composantes, à l’intérieur d’une fourchette chronologique allant de Calcidius jusqu’au XIVe siècle. Dix contributions sont consacrées à des questions de cosmologie hébraïque et islamique, traitant en particulier de Gersonide (R. Gatti), Maïmonide (L. Pepi), Avicenne (C. Di Martino, O. Lizzini), Sohravardî (I. Panzeca), Qûnawî (P. Spallino), les Frères de la Pureté (C. Baffioni) ainsi qu’aux interférences qui existent entre moyen âge islamique et latin : la grande question de la cosmologie alchimique (M. Pereira), des textes traduits comme le De secretis naturae (P. Travaglia), la doctrine de la grande année dans Thebit et Pietro d’Abano (F. Seller). Les travaux de E.S. Mainoldi et de R. Gambino consacrent une large place à l’influence de la patristique grecque sur la pensée occidentale. D’autres études présentent le développement de la pensée cosmologique et scientique latine à partir de Calcidius (C. Militello), par l’intermédiaire d’Adélard de Bath (P. Palmeri), de Guillaume de Conches (G. Pellegrino) et d’autres documents divers (A. Tarabochia Canavero) jusqu’à l’avènement de l’aristotélisme physique, en particulier dans les commentaires universitaires aux Météorologiques (G. Fioravanti), au De caelo (C.A. Musatti, A. Vella) et chez Dante (M. Gallarino, P. Falzone). Quant à la littérature scientifique en langue vulgaire, elle est représentée par Restoro d’Arezzo (U. Villani-Lubelli) et Raymond Lull (J.Gayà). La communication de G. Alliney est dédiée à des questions de méthode historiographique, tandis que la contribution magistrale de Tullio Gregory sur “Cosmogonie et cosmologies chrétiennes” reconstitue de manière idéale l’ensemble des liens constituant les coordonnées générales de l’ensemble de la problématique abordée sous ses différentes facettes par les auteurs du volume.

Il volume comprede una serie di saggi sui passi più significativi del commento di Alessandro di Afrodisia al IV libro dei Topici di Aristotele. In particolare, i saggi sono dedicati ai seguenti tre argomenti, su cui Alessandro espone tesi estremamente interessanti. Il primo tratta la dialettica, cioè l'argomento dei Topici; segue poi il genere, che costituisce l'argomento del IL libro in particolare; infine l'anima, le discussioni intorno alla quale costituiscono per il commentatore un esempio privilegiato per illustare i "luoghi" dialettici via via discussi."--Page 2 of cover.

This paper lists and examines the explicit references to Aristotle’s Topics in the Greek Neoplatonic commentaries on the Categories. The references to the Topics by Porphyry, Dexippus, Ammonius, Simplicius, Olympiodorus, Philoponus and David are listed according the usual prolegomena to Aristotle’s works. In particular, the paper reconstructs David ’s original thesis about the proponents of the title Pre-Topics for the Categories and compares Ammonius’, Simplicius’ and Olympiodorus’ doxographies about the postpraedicamenta. Moreover, the study identifies two general trends. The first one is that all the commentators after Proclus share the same general view about: the authenticity of the Topics, Aristotle’s writing style in them, the part of philosophy to which they belong, their purpose, their usefulness and their place in the reading order. The second one is that whereas Porphyry, Dexippus and Simplicius use the Topics as an aid to understanding the Categories, Ammonius, Olympiodorus and David do not.

This article is about the terms used in the works traditionally ascribed to Alexander of Aphrodisias to mean the process of abstraction through which intellect separates form and matter. The passages are studied in order to identify what nouns and verbs are used. Since in two works of dubious authorship aphaireô and aphairesis are found, the usage of these terms in the works that can be ascribed with certainty to Alexander is studied. The results obtained are examined in the light of the hypotheses about the authorship and chronology of the cited works formulated by scholars so far.