Silvia Fazzo

This paper reconsiders Metaphysics Θ 6.1048b18-35 the controversial passage about ἐνέργεια vs. κίνησις, at the intersection of textual transmission, grammatical articulation, and ontological interpretation. Special attention is devoted to the program of Book Θ, which announces a reconsideration of δύναμις rather than a privileged treatment of ἐνέργεια, and to the specifically Aristotelian conception of actuality as a relational determination (ἐνεργείᾳ, κατ’ ἐνέργειαν). From this perspective, the passage introduces a mode of speaking about ἐνέργεια that sits uneasily with the relational ontology articulated in Θ 1-5. The paper further reassesses appeals to Plotinus and Theophrastus, arguing that conceptual continuity does not entail textual attestation, and examines the manuscript evidence and the status of the passage within Byzantine transmission. Taken together, these considerations suggest that Θ 6.1048b18-35 is best understood not as an original component of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, but as a significant witness to an intermediate, neoplatonizing phase in the reception and transformation of Aristotelian ontology.

This paper follows up on two previous contributions in Aristotelica (3 and 5) that focused on the early transmission of Phys. 250b13 as a case study. Here, the discussion broadens to general questions about the scribal hands behind Aristotle’s earliest manuscripts J (ms. Vindobonensis Phil. gr. 100) and E (ms. Parisinus gr. 1853), their roles in textual history, and their connections to the earliest reconstructable archetype. Current scholarship holds that while the sources of J and E overlap for the Metaphysics (labeled Π by Jaeger’s 1957 critical apparatus), they diverge entirely for the other works held by both codices, i.e. Physics, De caelo, De generatione et corruptione, Meteorology. How can this be explained? A major, recent development is Ronconi’s (2012) identification of two distinct tenth-century volumes later combined into ms. E. Each has a main early scribe at work. Thereafter, no attempt has been made to differentiate their approaches to the text. In Aristotelica 5, E’s two early scribes are distinguished and labeled, the one, EMet (responsible for the Metaphysics) the other, EPhys (responsible for the Corpus Physicum). The two exhibit differing approaches. Through closer analysis of their methodologies, it is possible to investigate and eventually to detect what I call a “β agenda” in EPhys’s Corpus Physicum, by analogy with the socalled β manuscripts of the Metaphysics.

The contribution is a follow-up to my textual note in Aristotelica 3 (2023) on Physics VIII 1.250b1. What is at issue is a previously neglected lectio difficilior concerning cosmic motion, i.e., εἰ ἦν καὶ ἀεὶ ἔσται, “if it was [always] there, it will also always be”, vs. ἀεὶ ἦν καὶ ἀεὶ ἔσται, “it was there always and it will always be”. The theoretical relevance of the reading emerged more clearly in the subsequent debate: it may imply a hypothetical foundation of Aristotle’s theory of the eternity of cosmic motion, hence, of the cosmos itself, and hence, of its first unmoved principle. The question is: how can this case study contribute to the evolving research field of Aristotelian textual criticism? I will provide a more comprehensive answer in ‘Aristotle’s Earliest Extant Manuscripts. New Doubts and Perspectives’ forthcoming in Aristotelica 6.

Based on new findings about the emergence and transmission of Aristotle’s corpus in late antiquity, the paper tackles a most controversial issue : the relation of Father and Son in Symbols of Nicaea (325) and of Constantinople (381) from the strict point of view of the Greek word and concept οὐσία. The concept is shown to evolve in a few decades from individual οὐσία (e.g., Socrates and Callias), as in the Categories, to οὐσία as immaterial substance as in Metaphysics Lambda. First parchment copies of Aristotle’s Metaphysics and of the corpus, probably kept in Constantinople since about 352 AD, played a possible role.

This article proposes a follow up of Fazzo’s contributions on the stemma codicum of Aristotle’s Metaphysics – including her Chora 2015 paper, its completion in the 2017 Revue d’Histoire des Textes and, most recently, a contribution on the text of Zeta 17 in Aristotelica 1 2022. All of these are summarized and framed here in the context of today’s lively debate. We then introduce the data of Marco Ghione’s collation and comparison of the readings of the two oldest manuscripts J and E : J, the Vind. phil. gr. 100, early 9th century – the so‑called “Aristotle of Vienna” – is thus extensively compared with E, Paris. gr. 1853, early 10th century, with selected reference to the earliest hands at work (J, J2, E1). Based on Paul Maas’ theory of errors, we are now in condition to face the crucial issue : does the latter depend on the former? This helps resolving the one residual opacity or incertitude concerning the upper part of the Metaphysics’ stemma.

The article proposes a follow up contribution, possibly an almost final word, of our previous ones to the paleographical section of this journal – 2015 and 2022 especially but also 2018 – on the textual tradition of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Based on Maas theory of Trennfehler, along the two latest decades, we collected and evaluated any possible counter arguments for the sake of a unified stemma codicum, topped by Π. We also add further details. As a result, Π is a fourth century AD parchment manuscript. This unified Π stemma stands as an alternative to the previous two branched stemmas topped by two disconnected α and β without a single archetype (by Bernardinello 1970 and by Harlfinger 1979). One is recalled that those stemmas were ultimately based on Jaeger’s 1912, 1957 theory of the two versions of the Metaphysics, one which does not carry conviction since decades. As an alternative, according to our exploration and research on all the fourteen books of the Metaphysics, Π has been found to be the source not only of J, of E and of other alpha manuscripts (via J or via E) but of all extant Greek manuscripts of the Metaphysics, including Ab and the other representative of the so called β branch. This, without being identical, fits remarkably well with Marwan Rashed findings concerning the Greek exemplar of the Arabic tradition : one can figure the size, the columns layout, the capital scriptio continua handwriting of that exemplar, based on the magnificent Vatican ms. B (Vet. gr. 1219) of the Bible – possibly the earliest extant Greek manuscript of all the books of the Ancient and of the New Testament. Both as a proof and as a possible means for independent counter arguments, Laura Folli and Marco Ghione make available here fresh collations for two central books of the Metaphysics, Zeta and Eta. Variant readings from Ab (β) are thus contrasted with Π’s manuscripts : J, E. Eb is also being added as an early representative of the important delta group. Based on Paul Maas’ theory of errors, we are now in condition to face the crucial issue : does not Ab depend on the former and, if so, to what extent ? This helps to resolve any residual opacity or incertitude concerning the upper part of the stemma. As a consequence, manuscript sources for the text constitution of the Metaphysics are reduced to a very tight minimum : J, with its corrector J2 ; E’s first hand can be eventually taken into account. Other sources – including Ab and all so‑called β and δ manuscripts, are relevant, so far as our present knowledge goes, as sources for improvement and correction only.

In June 2023, a group of ‘Aristotelians without Borders’ met in the splendid Villa San Remigio in Verbania, one of the beautiful premises of the University of Eastern Piedmont. Following in the footsteps of Aristotelians over the centuries, the participants were committed to the belief that engaging in dialogue has a value in itself. Our Aristotelian predecessors have collectively bequeathed to us a common language, a shared form of rationality and a grammar of thought which allow us to engage in dialogue despite our differences.

This paper is concerned with an important variant reading discovered at the beginning of Book VIII of Aristotle’s _Physics_. The reading is found in J, the oldest manuscript of this work (Vind. phil. gr. 100, 9th c.): at VIII 1.250b13, J reads εἰ ἦν, “if it [_scil_. the movement] was”, instead of ἀεὶ ἦν, “it always was”, the only reading so far taken into account. Several early witnesses support J: E (Paris. gr. 1853, 10th c.), the Greek into Latin translation by James of Venice (first half of the 12th c., _si erat_); the earliest Arabic version (_ap_. Jabir ibn Hayyan, انكنات, “if [the movement] was”). Such early sources thus agree as witnesses of a hypothetical premise concerning the eternity of cosmic motion against the standard vulgate text of the _Physics_. Once the if-reading at 250b13 is accepted, as opposed to the vulgate, Aristotle’s conclusion about the eternity of motion will apply not absolutely, but under the condition of the given premise that in no plausible way could motion have begun in time. The difference is important on several grounds. In particular, it fits better with the manner in which the argument is then developed by Aristotle throughout chapter 1 of _Phys_. VIII and with the parallel discussion about the eternity of the cosmos in _De caelo_ I 10 and _Metaphysics_ Λ 6. However, favouring the variant reading of J for _Phys_. 250b13 raises the problem of evaluating with special care the authority of manuscript J for the textual constitution of the _Physics_, which remains an open question for future scholarship.

This paper provides an annotated list of printed editions of Aristotle’s Metaphysica Nova, i.e. of the Arabic-Latin 13th-century version of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, which circulated within the Latin translation of Averroes’ Commentarium Magnum (Tafsīr mā baʿd al-ṭabīʿat). It is shown that this version – the impact of which was second to none –was never printed without at least one Greek-into-Latin version. From the 1473 editio princeps to the 1562 Iunctasedition, complementary material from the Greek into Latin and from the Arabic into Latin Aristotelian traditions was increasingly added. Links to relevant digital reproductions are also provided.

The initial dilemma. I.1. The gradual rise of the Metaphysics. I.2. A bold contribution from textual history. I.3. A new perspective on late ancient commentaries. I.4. First philosophy or Metaphysics? I.5. Can tradition be ignored? II. ‘Being’ and οὐσία at the core of Aristotle’s theoretical research. II.1. Ontology as a science of ‘being’ in Aristotle: “What is X?” in the foreground. II.2. The first caveat: the copula function of Aristotle’s ‘being’. II.3. The definite article τό as quotation marks before the flexed forms of ‘be’: τὸ ὄν, τὸ εἶναι, τὸ ἔστιν. II.4. Further explanations about Aristotle’s ‘being’. III. Οὐσία, the core of Aristotle’s theoretical philosophy. III.1. οὐσία and the criterion of pre‑eminence as Plato’s legacy. III.2. The dialectical roots of ontology. III.3. οὐσία from Zeta to Lambda. III.4. οὐσία as essence and οὐσία as substance. III.5. οὐσία as a syntactical core; the word’s etymology. III.6. οὐσία as the first sense of being in Aristotle’s first philosophy. III.7. Ontology as science, science of the science. IV. Historicizing: the semantic gap. IV.1. Editorial tradition: ontology and οὐσία as a fil rouge in the order of Metaphysics books. IV.2. οὐσία in the first century B.C. IV.3. οὐσία by Alexander of Aphrodisias. IV.4. Metaphysics and its purpose: the role of the Lambda book. IV.5. Being and οὐσία: a relationship lost over time. IV.6. The Aristotelian tradition as a way to cooperation.

The paper firstly focuses on a rare vox, that is, the verb μετίσχω, as a new finding in two different sources: the Π text of Methaphysics Lambda 1075b19 and the “Ai Khanoum philosophical papyrus” (not only at column II.9, but arguably at II.11 and IV.8–9 as well). Using the verb μετίσχω testifies for a “2.0 version” of the theory of ideas, in a subsequent phase to Plato’s Parmenides. Xenocrates is likely to have played a role. This suggests a deeper connection than previously thought between Aristotelian theories and Plato’s Academy.

Not many texts from the Greek classical literature focus on the nature of the Good more closely than Aristotle’ Metaphysics Lambda 10. The first section raises the question to be answered henceforth : is the Good to be conceived as anything separated or does it intrinsically belong to the universe, as a way of being? And if both ways, how so, and which way first, and why?According to a current reading, which is well established in the commentary tradition, Aristotle’s Good comes, first of all, as a separate being, namely God ; as a consequence, it also belongs to every kind of being. My aim is to show that this view, though playing a significant role in late Aristotelian scholastics, is scarcely supported in Aristotle’s text. In fact, it is unlikely to grasp whatever Aristotle has been willing to say in this final chapter of book Lambda, which brings to conclusion his overall theory about the principles of the world.

Prolegomena pour une nouvelle modalite critique d’edition et de reference concernant le temoignage d’Alexandre sur le texte de la Metaphysique d’Aristote. Methode et cas d’etude : ‘Alexandre’ et le ‘telephone sans fil’ des apparats critiques in Metaphysique 1072b2‑3. Quel ‘Commentaire’ d’Alexandre? Un texte a re‑etablir. Les editions du commentaire d’Alexandre au XIXe siecle : le role du manuscrit Monacensis gr. 81, a. 1550 env.. L’edition Hayduck 1888 du commentaire d’Asclepius comme etude de cas parallele et comme source supplementaire. Le commentaire d’Alexandre selon la recensio laurentiana. L’independance des deux recensiones comme dilemme. La tradition indirecte de la tradition indirecte de la Metaphysique : le commentaire d’Asclepius. L’analyse des parties communes entre Asclepius et la recensio laurentiana sur Δ29 : un cas particulier. Les arguments de Hayduck 1891 pour l’athetese du texte du Laurentianus. L’argument de Hayduck 1891 sur la recensio laurentiana in Arist. 985a18‑20 et ses developpements recents : la suppression des mots d’Aristote concernant la fonction du νοῦς chez Anaxagore. La nouvelle athetese de la recensio laurentiana : arguments pro et contra. Discussions de nos jours sur l’edition d’Alexandre : l’hypothese du Paris. 1878 comme branche β. Tradition d’exegese, souci de legitimation, perte d’information, normalisation du langage. L’hypertexte possible et autres perspectives.

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

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 , 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 . 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

How do the heavenly bodies physically affect the sublunary world? On this topic, the few fragmentary statements by Aristotle were refined and expanded by his Greek commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias. In the Kind-circle adaptations of Alexander and al-Kind-circle's Alexander was closely followed by al-Kind himself exerted a reciprocal influence on the Arabic Alexander, who was largely the product of his own group of translators. The appendix contains English translations from Arabic of two adapted Alexander's treatises

I. Introduzione. I.1. Un’editio minor come sfida aperta. I.2 Per una più selettiva eliminatio. II.1 Sulla storia del problema : l’eredità del XIX secolo (Brandis 1823, Christ 1885, Gercke 1892) nelle edizioni del XX (Ross 1924, Jaeger 1957). II.2. Studi recenti : la necessità di un superamento. II.3. Lo stemma di riferimento : Harlfinger (1979). II.4. L’applicazione dello stemma nel libro Alpha edito da Primavesi. II.5. La revisione dello stemma, proposta per Kappa e Lambda (2009, 2010). II.6. La reazione : discussioni sul ruolo della tradizione β in Kappa e Lambda (2015). III. Una verifica dello stemma in agenda : la divisione delle due famiglie. III.1 Fra i codici β : L’Ambrosianus F 113 Sup. come codex descriptus ? (libri I-IX inc.). III.2. L’ipotesi dell’ interpositus ε e le sue implicazioni sistematiche. III.3 Allievo e maestro nel XV secolo : Matthaios Chamariotes (C) e Giorgio Scholarios, Gennadeios II (Vk). III.4. Il non liquet sulle parti inferiori dello stemma e il concetto di contaminazione. IV.1. Rivedendo lo stemma dall’interno : il problema critico degli errori-guida (Leitfehler). IV.2. Iudicium e valutazione degli errori. IV.3. Errori separativi ed errori congiuntivi secondo la Textkritik di Paul Maas. IV.4. Una verifica importante : il ruolo di γ. V. Un’ipotesi alternativa . V.1. Il testo della Metafisica nei codici poziori. V.2. Un ritorno alla sigla ". V.3. Un nuovo stemma dei codici principali della Metafisica. Appendice : una verifica sull’ipotesi γ

One of the main philosophical works by Alexander of Aphrodisias, De principiis, is lost in its original Greek text, but it is preserved in three extant Medieval Semitic versions, one in Syriac and two in Arabic, which were written in the Near East between 500 and 950 AD. These versions are not totally identical and, as we have shown in 2012, they are in a rather complex textual relationship. As we will show in this article, a tentative reconstruction of the lost text should be based upon an attentive and point‑to‑point comparative analysis of some aspect of all three versions. We have tentatively called the abore way “critical translation”.