Theory and History of Ontology

by Raul Corazzon - e-mail: raul.corazzon[at]formalontology.it

For an overview see the Index of the Pages, the SITE MAP or the Alphabetical Index of the Philosophers: A-F - G-O - P-Z; You can also download this page as Ontology in PDF format

Table of Contemporary Ontologists Ontology. Table of Ontologists (click on the image to see the PDF file)

The Neoplatonic Commentators on Aristotle's Metaphysics

 

Index of the Section: Metaphysics or Ontology? The Debate about the Subject Matter of First Philosophy

 

THE GREEK COMMENTARY TRADITION

"More than any other philosophical current of the Imperial period, Aristotelianism operated as a commentary tradition. Based on the texts of the Master -- on their precise wording and terminology -- Aristotelian philosophy found in the commentary format not only a means of transmission, but also a preferred tool for the development of doctrine. A closed system, but not a static one, it evolved in two main directions: internal consistency and external competitiveness. Thus, the basic aim was, on the one hand, systematic coherence and didactical proficiency; on the other, fuller responsiveness to the various issues that emerged in the long span of time between Aristotle and the last traces of an Aristotelian school.

In a broad sense, one can see a development of this sort starting from the early Peripatos, among Aristotle's immediate successors, Eudemus and Theophrastus. But a major part of the process -- namely, work on the texts of Aristotle -- probably came to a halt in the next generation. We are told that the libraries of Aristotle and Theophrastus were dispersed, while the dialogues and the more popular texts remained in circulation (the so-called exoteric works, i.e. those written for publication outside the school). As a matter of fact, the Aristotelian legacy among masters and teachers of the Hellenistic period was often elementary and non-specialized, open to various influences from other contemporary schools, especially Stoicism.

The development of Aristotelianism into a commentary tradition was not completed until the first centuries of the Christian era. This development presupposes, above all, the accessibility of the treatises or pragmateiai written by Aristotle for his own school (the so-called 'esoteric' works). Here, according to the commonly held view, a decisive role was played by the editorial activity of Andronicus, a Peripatetic scholarch who arranged them and made them accessible during the first century BC. Toward the end of the century, these treatises were available again, or became available for the first time (as seems to have been the case with the Metaphysics as a whole, although some of its individual books were already listed among Aristotle's works). The Aristotelian corpus was largely accessible to the 'early commentators', in particular to Boethus of Sidon, a pupil of Andronicus, and to Nicolaus of Damascus. The latter's compendium of Aristotelian philosophy implies the circulation of a Metaphysics not too far in content and shape from the one we do have, with the same title, Meta to physika.

A major qualitative change took place in the course of the second century AD, when the commentary tradition adopted the specific aims of a period of archaizing and of a return to the classics. Literary Atticism is one of the best-known expressions of this archaizing tendency, which saw in the ancients both a timeless model for stylistic imitation and, in the context of philosophy, a legacy of truth that could be neither extended nor surpassed.

This is why the commentary gained such a central position in Aristotelian literature. Still, it was conceived as something to be used, rather than as a product with a cultural value of its own. For this reason, the successive stages of the commentary tradition tend to obliterate one another. A new commentary on a given work of Aristotle thus appropriated, not without criticism and selection, the interpretative legacy of the preceding commentary. At this point the earlier commentary could cease to be consulted and transmitted and so often came to be lost. In the new commentary, both recent and earlier components co-exist in successive layers, often without distinction, so that it is difficult to determine what the most recent commentator has himself contributed and what he has inherited from his predecessors. For both reasons, therefore, commentaries tend to be an impersonal product: both because of their original purpose -- to help the reader of a text written by someone else -- and because of the peculiar dynamics of their use and transmission. Within the Peripatetic tradition, the personality of the commentator is overshadowed not only by the authority ofthe Master, but also by the collective authority of the school.

We are now in a position to understand the first basic difficulty that the history of philosophy faces in attempting to give an account of the work of commentators and, hence, in evaluating the Aristotelianism of late antiquity. The evidence is plentiful, but it does not sufficiently explain the activity of individuals. This difficulty is further increased by another factor: the theoretical foundations of nineteenth-century history of philosophy, which inevitably persist in categorizations and evaluations that still have an influence, especially in areas that are not yet fully explored. This approach concentrated, on the one hand, on important individuals, and, on the other, on the reconstruction, through 'successions' or diadochai, of a progressive development of ideas that, from imperfect and embryonic beginnings, came to be displayed in all their fullness and power. In both respects, the historical approach has been opposite to the emphases and aims of the commentary tradition itself, which tends to play down the intermediary contributions while looking backward to the past in order to search for (or to reconstruct) a timeless truth, held to be definitively contained in the foundational texts of the school.

Such historiographical difficulties have led to negative judgements on the culture of commentaries. Hence its summary treatment -- if not complete neglect -- in many scholastic manuals, where the commentary seems to be just a dry and long-winded repetition of what is already contained in the texts of the great masters. Nor has the commentary tradition been judged any less critically where it has been possible to point out differences between Aristotle's and a commentator's Aristotelianism: this kind of instances have led to harsh accusations, both of deliberate betrayal, and of incompetence and misunderstanding of the original text.

The rediscovery of the work of the commentators as a living tradition of re-workings of Aristotle's philosophy, and not just of its transmission (or distortion), has taken place only in our own day. And even now, this does not mean that the relevant problems mentioned have been resolved in a single way, nor that methodological principles of inquiry have been firmly and generally agreed on. Rather, specific interests and contexts have prompted the different, particular direction that research on individual topics has followed (...). But it is precisely this plurality of complementary approaches that is producing now one of the richest, most lively and dynamic fields of research in ancient philosophy." (pp. 3-8) (notes omitted)

From: Silvia Fazzo - Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition - in: P. Adamson, F. Baltussen and M. W. F. Stone (eds) - Philosophy, science and exegesis in Greek, Arabiac and Latin commentaries - London, Institute of Classical Studies, 2004 - Vol. One, pp. 1-19.

 

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ON THE GREEK COMMENTATORS OF ARISTOTLE

  1. Aristotle transformed. The Ancient Commentators and their influence. Edited by Sorabji Richard. London: Duckworth 1990.
    Contents: Preface VII; AcknowledgmentsIX; List of contributors X; 1. Richard Sorabji: The ancient commentators on Aristotle 1; 2. Karl Praechter: Review of the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca(1909) 31; 3. Hans B. Gottschalk: The earliest Aristotelian commentators (1987) 55; 4. Robert W. Sharples: The school of Alexander? 83; 5. Henry J. Blumenthal: Themistius: the last Peripatetic commentator on Aristotle? (1979) 113; 6. Pierre Hadot: The harmony of Plotinus and Aristotle according to Porphyry (1974) 125; 7. Sten Ebbesen: Porphyry's legacy to logic: a reconstruction (1981) 141; 8. H. D. Saffrey: How did Syrianus regard Aristotle? (1987) 173; 9. Richard Sorabji: Infinite power impressed: the transformation of Aristotle's physics and theology (1989) 181; 10. Koenrad Verrycken: The metaphysics of Ammonius son of Hermeias 199; 11. Koenrad Verrycken: The development of Philoponus' thought and its chronology 233; 12. Ilsetraut Hadot: The life and work of Simplicius in Greek and Arabic sources (1987) 275; 13. Henry J. Blumenthal: Neoplatonic elements in the de Anima commentaries (1976) 305; 14.Leendert Gerrit Westerink: The Alexandrian commentators and the introductions to their commentaries (1962) 325; 15. James Shiel: Boethius' commentaries on Aristotle (1958) 349; 16. Sten Ebbesen: Boethius as an Aristotelian commentator (1987) 373; 17. Robert Browning: An unpublished funeral oration on Anna Comnena (1962) 393; 18. H. P. F. Mercken: The Greek commentators on Aristotle's Ethics (1973) 407; 19. Sten Ebbesen: Philoponus, 'Alexander' and the origins of medieval logic 445; 20. Ian Mueller: Aristotle's doctrine of abstraction in the commentators 463; Donald R. Morrison: Note on the frontispiece: 'Aristotle and Alexander of Aphrodisias' by Ulocrino 481; Select bibliography 485; Index locorum 525; General index 535-545.

    "The story of the ancient commentators on Aristotle has not previously been told at book length. Here it is assembled for the first time by drawing both on some of the classic articles translated into English or revised and on the very latest research. Some of the chapters will be making revisionary suggestions unfamiliar even to specialists in the field. The philosophical interest of the commentators has been illustrated elsewhere. (1) The aim here is not so much to do this again as to set out the background of the commentary tradition against which further philosophical discussion and discussions of other kinds can take place.
    The importance of the commentators lies partly in their representing the thought and classroom teaching of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonist schools, partly in the panorama they provide of the 1100 years of Ancient Greek philosophy, preserving as they do many original quotations from lost philosophical works. Still more significant is their profound influence, uncovered in some of the chapters below, on subsequent philosophy, Islamic and European. This was due partly to their preserving anti-Aristotelian material which helped to inspire medieval and Renaissance science, but still more to their presenting an Aristotle transformed in ways which happened to make him acceptable to the Christian Church. It is not just Aristotle, but this Aristotle transformed and embedded in the philosophy of the commentators, that lies behind the views of later thinkers.
    Many of the commentaries are being translated in the series 'The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle', published by Duckworth and Cornell University Press from 1987 onwards (general editor: Richard Sorabji). The present book will also serve as an introduction to them.
    (Chapters 1, 4, 10, 11, 19 and 20 are new; 2, 6, 8 and 12 are translated; 5, 9, 14, 15 and 18 are substantially revised. Others are revised in more minor ways; Greek and Latin passages are translated throughout." (from the Preface)

     

  2. Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Edited by Goulet-Cazé Marie-Odile. Paris: Vrin 2000.
    Actes du colloque international de l'Institut des traditions textuelles (Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1999)

     

  3. Aristotele e Alessandro di Afrodisia nella tradizione Araba. Edited by D'Ancona Cristina and Serra Giuseppe. Padova: Il Poligrafo 2002.
    Atti del colloquio La ricezione araba ed ebraica della filosofia e della scienza greche Padova, 14-15 maggio 1999.

    Indice: Presentazione 7; Abbreviazioni 17; Gerhard Endress: Alexander Arabus on the First Cause. Aristotle's First Mover in an Arabic Treatise attributed to Alexander of Aphrodisias 19; Cecilia Martini: La tradizione araba della Metafisica di Aristotele. Libri alfa - A 75; Carmela Baffioni: Una citazione di De interpretatione, 9 in Abu Ma'sar? 113; Emma Gannagé: Matière et éléments dans le commentaire d'Alexandre d'Aphrodise In De Generatione et corruptione 133; Silvia Fazzo: Alessandor di Afrodisia sulle 'contrarietà tangibili' (De Gen corr. II 2); fonti greche e arabe a confronto 151; Marc Geoffroy: La tadition arabe di Peri nous d'Alexandre d'Aphrodise et les origines de la théorie farabienne des quatres dégrés de l'intellect 191; Paola Carusi: Filosofia greca e letteratura nel Ma' al-waraqi di Ibn Umail al-Tamimi (X secolo) 233; Marwan Rashed: La classification des lignes simples selon Proclus et sa transmission au monde islamique 257; Heidrun Eichner: Ibn Rusd's Middle Commentary and Alexander's Commentary in their relationship to the Arab commentary tradition on the De Generatione et corruptione 281; Mauro Zonta: Le traduzioni di Zerahyah Gracian e la versione ebraica del De Generatione et corruptione 299; Giuseppe Serra: Note in margine a M. Zonta, Le traduzioni di Zerahyah Gracian e la versione ebraica del De Generatione et corruptione 319; Indice dei manoscritti 325; Indice degli autori antichi 327; Indice degli autori moderni 331-334.

     

  4. Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. I: Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung. Edited by Geerlings Wilhelm and Schulze Christian. Berlin: de Gruyter 2002.

     

  5. Aristotele e i suoi esegeti neoplatonici. Logica e ontologia nelle interpretazioni greche e arabe. Edited by Celluprica Vincenza and D'Ancona Cristina. Napoli: Bibliopolis 2004.
    Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma, 19-20 ottobre 2001.

    Sommario: Vincenza Celluprica: Prefazione IX; Cristina D'Ancona: Introduzione XI-XXI; Riccardo Chiaradonna: R. CHIARADONNA: Plotino e la teoria degli universali. Enn. VI 3 [44], 9 p. 1; Frans A. J. De Haas: Context and strategy of Plotinus' treatise On the Genera of Being (Enn. VI 1-3 [42-44]) 37; Henri Hugonnard-Roche: La constitution de la logigue tardo-antique et l'élaboration d'une logique "matérielle" en syriaque 55; Cleophea Ferrari: Der Duft des Apfels. Abu 1-Farag 'Abdallah Ibn at-Tayyib und sein Kommentar zu den Kategorien des Aristoteles 85; Marwan Rashed: Ibn 'Adi et Avicenne: sur les types d'existants 107; Amos Bertolacci: La ricezione del libro Gamma della Metafisica nell'Ilahiyyat del Kitab al-Sifà' di Avicenna 173; Cecilia Martini Bonadeo: Os éromenon:: alcune interpretazioni di Metaph. Lambda 7 211; Bibiografia 245; Indici 271-282.

     

  6. Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. II: Neue Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung. Edited by Geerlings Wilhelm and Schulze Christian. Berlin: de Gruyter 2004.

     

  7. Philosophy, science and exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries. Edited by Adamson Peter, Baltussen Han, and Stone M.W.F. London: Institute of Classical Studies - University of London 2004.
    Contents:
    Volume One - Preface VII; Richard Sorabji: Poem VIII-IX; Silvia Fazzo: Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition 1; Han Baltussen: Plato Protagoras 340-48: commentary in the making? 21;
    Gabor Betegh: Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus 37; R. W. Sharples: Alexander of Aphrodisias: what is a Mantissa? 51; Inna Kupreeva: Aristotelian dynamics in the 2nd century school debates: Galen and Alexander of Aphrodisias on organic powers and movements 71; George Karamanolis: Porphyry: the first Platonist commentator on Aristotle 97; Riccardo Chiaradonna: The categories and the status of the physical world: Plotinus and the Neo-Platonic commentators 121; Jan Opsomer: Plutarch's De animae procreatione in Timaeo: manipulation or search for consistency? 137; Peter Lautner: The koinè aisthesis in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius 163; Harold Tarrant: Must commentators know their sources? Proclus in Timaeum and Numenius 175; R. M. van den Berg: Smoothing over the differences: Proclus and Ammonius on Plato's Cratylus and Aristotle's De Interpretatione 191; Anna Somfai: Calcidius' commentary on Plato's Timaeus and its place in the commentary tradition: the concept of analogia in text and diagrams 203; Katerina Ierodoakonou: Byzantine commentators on the epistemic status of ethics 221; John Sellars: The Aristotelian commentators: a bibliographical guide 239; Index locorum 269-280.
    Volume Two - Preface IX; Gotthard Strohmayer: Galen's not uncritical Commentary on Hippocrates' Airs, Waters, Places 1; Peter E. Pormann: The Alexandrian Summary (Jawami) of Galen's On the Sects fro Beginners: Commentary or abrdgment? 11; Marwan Rashed: The problem of the composition of the Heavens (529-1610) a new fragment of Philoponus and its readers 35; Peter Adamson: Correcting Plotinus: soul's relationship to body in Avicenna's Commentary on the Theology of Aristotle 59; Dimitri Gutas: Avicenna's marginal glosses on De anima and the Greek commentatorial tradition 77; Steven Harvey: The impact of Philoponus' Commentary on the Physics on Averroes' three Commentaries on the Physics 89; Richard C. Taylor: Improving on nature's exemplar: Averroes' completion of Aristotle's psychology of intellect 107; Dag Nikolaus Hasse: The attraction of Averroism in the Renaissance: Vernia, Achillini, Prassico 131; Robert Winowsky: The nature and scope of Arabic philosophical commentary in post-classical (ca. 1100-1900 AD) islamic intellectual history: some preliminary observations 149; Index locorum 193-197.

    "This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002, in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji's Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle, and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators. Volume Two deals with commentaries in Arabic, including a paper on the reception of Arabic interpretations of Aristotle's De anima in Latin during the Renaissance." (From the Preface)

     

  8. The philosophy of the Commentators 200-600 AD. A sourcebook. Edited by Sorabji Richard. London: Duckworth 2004.
    Vol. I: Psychology; Vol. II: Physics; Vol. III: Logic and Metaphysics.

     

  9. The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Edited by D'Ancona Cristina. Leiden: Brill 2007.
    Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network "Late antiquity and Arabic thought : patterns in the constitution of European culture" held in Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the impulsion of the Scientific Committee of the Meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D'Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endress, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche.

     

  10. Syrianus et la métaphysique de l'Antiquité tardive. Edited by Longo Angela. Napoli: Bibliopolis 2009.
    "Le présent volume constitue les Actes du colloque "Syrianus et la métaphysique de l'Antiquité tardive", qui a eu lieu à l'Université de Genève du 29 septembre au 1er octobre 2006. Il s'agit du premier colloque international de philosophie antique à avoir été consacré intégralement au philosophe Syrianus (Ve siècle après J.-C.), maître de Proclus et diadoque de l'École platonicienne d'Athènes. Syrianus est un philosophe important pour la force de sa pensée et pour la grande influence qu'il a eue dans la tradition platonicienne de l'Antiquité tardive. Malgré cela, il reste encore trop peu connu et étudié.
    Les contributions des spécialistes de la tradition platonicienne, réunis à cette occasion, ont traité des différents aspects du projet philosophique de Syrianus ainsi que de son savoir littéraire et rhétorique, sans négliger la question de l'état de la tradition manuscrite de ses ouvrages. Il reste que la connaissance de Syrianus doit encore être approfondie et que ce volume, tout en marquant un premier résultat dans ce sens, se veut surtout un encouragement à poursuivre la recherche sur cet auteur."

     

  11. Baltussen Han, "From polemic to exegesis: the ancient philosophical commentary," Poetics Today 28: 247-289 (2007).
    "Commentary was an important vehicle for philosophical debate in late antiquity. Its antecedents lie in the rise of rational argumentation, polemical rivalry, literacy, and the canonization of texts. This essay aims to give a historical and typological outline of philosophical exegesis in antiquity, from the earliest allegorizing readings of Homer to the full-blown "running commentary" in the Platonic tradition (fourth to sixth centuries CE). Running commentaries are mostly on authoritative thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle. Yet they are never mere scholarly enterprises but, rather, springboards for syncretistic clarification, elaboration, and creative interpretation. Two case studies (Galen 129-219 CE, Simplicius ca. 530 CE) will illustrate the range of exegetical tools available at the end of a long tradition in medical science and in reading Aristotle through Neoplatonic eyes, respectively."

     

  12. Baltussen Han. Philosophy and exegesis in Simplicius. The methodology of a Commentator. London: Duckworth 2008.

     

  13. Barnes Jonathan, "Metacommentary," Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 10: 267-281 (1992).

     

  14. Benakis Linos. Commentaires and Commentators on the works of Aristotle (except the logical ones) in Byzantium. In Historia philosophiae Medii Aevi. Studien zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters. Edited by Mojsisch Burkhard and Pluta Olaf. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner 1988. pp. 45-54

     

  15. Benakis Linos. Commentaries and Commentators on the logical works of Aristotle in Byzantium. In Gedankenzeichen. Festschrift für Klaus Oehler zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Claussen Regina and Daube-Schakat Roland. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag 1988. pp. 3-12
    .

     

  16. D'Ancona Costa Cristina. Commenting on Aristotle: from Late Antiquity to the Arab Aristotelianism. In Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter. Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung. Band 1. Edited by Geerlings Wilhelm and Schulze Christian. Leiden: Brill 2002. pp. 201-251

     

  17. Donini Pierluigi. Testi e commenti, manuali e insegnamento: la forma sistematica e i metodi della filosofia in età post-ellenistica. In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (ANRW). Geschichte und Kultur Roms in Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat. Edited by Haase Wolfgang. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 1987. pp. 5027-5094
    Band 36.7: Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. Teilband II: Systematische Themen; Indirekte Überlieferungen; Allgemeines; Nachträge

     

  18. Drossaart Lulofs Hendrik J. Nicolaus Damascenus on the philosophy of Aristotle. Leiden: Brill 1965.
    Fragments of the first five books translated from the Syriac witn an introduction and commentary.
    Photomechanical reprint with additions and corrections 1969.

     

  19. Ebbesen Sten. Late-ancient ancestors of medieval philosophical Commentaries. In The Philosophical Commentary in the Latin West (13-15th centuries). Edited by Fioravanti Gianfranco, Leonardi Claudio, and Perfetti Stefano. Turnhout: Brepols 2002. pp. 1-15
    Title also in Italian: Il Commento filosofico nell'Occidente Latino (secoli XIII-XV).
    Atti del colloquio Firenze-Pisa, 19-22 ottobre 2000, organizzato dalla SISMEL (Società Internazionale per ls Studio del Medioevo Latino) e dalla SISPM (Società Italiana per lo Studio del Pensiero Medievale).

     

  20. Falcon Andrea, "The pre-history of the Commentary Tradition: Aristotelianism in the First century BCE (Prolegomena to a study of Xenarchus of Seleucia)," Laval Théologique et Philosophique 64: 7-18 (2008).
    "In the first century BCE Aristotle was subject to an intense textual study. This study eventually led to the appropriation of the conceptual apparatus developed in his writings. In the case of Xenarchus, the relevant apparatus was Aristotle's theory of motion, with an emphasis on the concepts of natural place and natural motion. Xenarchus reworked Aristotle's theory of motion so as to make the celestial simple body expendable. While I do not deny that some of his views are best understood in light of the debates of late Hellenestic philosophy, I contend that his textual engagement presupposes the distance from Aristotle that is characteristic of Post-Hellenistic philosophy."

     

  21. Fazzo Silvia. Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition. In Philosophy, science and exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries (Vol. One). Edited by Adamson Peter, Baltussen Han, and Stone M.W.F. London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London 2004. pp. 1-19

     

  22. Golitsis Pantelis. Les Commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon à la Physique d'Aristote: tradition et innovation. Berlin: de Gruyter 2008.

     

  23. Gottschalk Hans B. Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the Second century AD. In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (ANRW). Geschichte und Kultur Roms in Spiegel der neueren Forschung. Teil II: Principat. Edited by Haase Wolfgang. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 1987. pp. 1079-1174
    Band 36.2: Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. Teilband II: Philosophie (Platonismus [Forts.]; Aristotelismus.

     

  24. Hadot Ilsetraut. La division néoplatonicienne des écrits d'Aristote. In Aristoteles. Werk und Wirkung (Mélanges Paul Moraux). Edited by Wiesner Jürgen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 1987. pp. 249-285

     

  25. Hadot Ilsetraut. Les introductions aux commentaires exégétiques chez les auteurs néoplatoniciens et le auteurs chrétiens. In Les règles de l'interprétation. Edited by Tardieu Michel. Paris: Cerf 1987. pp. 99-122
    "Le présent article décrit les différents types de schémas introductifs contenus dans les commentaires des néoplatoniciens tardifs sur les ceuvres d'Aristote et de Platon, en essayant de déterminer leur signification exégétique ainsi que l'origine de plusieurs d'entre eux. Il apparaît que les deux schémas en dix points qui introduisent respectivement à la philosophie d'Aristote et à celle de Platon ont de toute vraisemblance été codifiés par Proclus au V siècle de notre ère, tandis que certains points des schémas en six points introduisant aux différents traités d'Aristote ou aux divers dialogues de Platon apparaissent déjà au III siècle chez Origène qui a dû s'inspirer des commentaires platoniciens de son temps."

     

  26. Hadot Ilsetraut, "Le commentaire philosophique continu dans l'Antiquité," Antiquité Tardive 5: 169-176 (1997).

     

  27. Hadot Pierre. Philosophie, exégèse et contresens. In Akten des XIV. Internationalen Kongress für Philosophie. Vol I. Wien: Herder 1968. pp. 333-339
    Reprinted in: P. Hadot - Études de philosophie ancenne - Paris, Belles Lettres, 1998, pp. 3-11.

     

  28. Hoffmann Philippe. La problématique du titre des traités d'Aristote selon le commentateurs grecs. Quelques exemples. In Titres et articulations du texte dans les oeuvres antiques. Edited by Fredouille Jean-Claude et al. Paris: Institut d'Études Augustiniennes 1997. pp. 75-103
    Études Augustiniennes vol. 152.
    Actes du Colloque International de Chntilly, 13-15 décembre 1994

     

  29. Hoffmann Philippe. La fonction des prologues exégétiques dans la pensée Pédagogique néoplatonicienne. In Entre en matière. Les prologues. Edited by Dubois Jean-Daniel and Roussel Bernard. Paris: Cerf 1998. pp. 209-245

     

  30. Hoffmann Philippe. What was Commentary in Late Antiquity? The example of the Neoplatonic Commentators. In A Companion in ancient philosophy. Edited by Gill Mary Louise and Pellegrin Pierre. Malden: Blackwell 2006. pp. 597-622

     

  31. Karamanolis George. Porphyry: the first Platonist commentator on Aristotle. In Philosophy, science and exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries. Edited by Adamson Peter, Baltussen Han, and Stone M.W.F. London: Institute of Classical Studies - University of London 2004. pp. 97-120

     

  32. Matthews Gareth B. Container Metaphysics according to Aristotle's Greek Commentators. In Aristotle and his medieval interpreters. Edited by Bosley Richard and Tweedale Martin. Calgary: University of Calgary Press 1992. pp. 7-23
    Supplementary volume 17 to Canadian Journal of Philosophy.
    "The neo-Platonism of Aristotle's Greek Commentators leaves them unable to take with full seriousness the Categories doctrine that individual organisms like this human being or that horse are the primary realities. Yet these Commentators stand with Michael Frede and G. E. L. Owen against john Ackrill in reading 1a24-5 in such a way that Aristotle can really mean what he says when he maintains that all other things besides primary substances are either said of them, or in them, as subjects. not only are this grey and this color in the old grey mare, grey and color are there, too."

     

  33. Minio-Paluello Lorenzo. Opuscola. The Latin Aristotle. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert 1972.

     

  34. Moraux Paul. Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen, Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 1973.
    Vol. I: Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im I. Jh.v. Chr. (1973)
    Vol. II: Der Aristotelismus im I. und II. Jh.n. Chr. (1984)
    Vol. III: Alexander von Aphrodisias (2001) - Edited by Jürgen Wiesner, with a chapter on Ethics by Robert W. Sharples

    The first two volumes are translated in Italian as: L'Aristotelismo presso i Greci.
    Vol. I: La rinascita dell'Aristotelismo nel I secolo a. C.; vol. II/1: Gli Aristotelici nei secoli I e II d.C.; vol. II/2: L'Aristotelismo nei non-Aristotelici nei secoli I e II d.C. - Milano, Vita e pensiero, 2000.

    In the third volume see the Fourth Chapter: Kommentar zur Aristotelischen Metaphyisik pp. 423-510.

     

  35. Muckle Joseph Thomas, "Greek Works translated directly into Latin before 1350. Part I: Before 1000," Mediaeval Studies 4: 33-42 (1942).

     

  36. Muckle Joseph Thomas, "Greek Works translated directly into Latin before 1350 (Continuation)," Mediaeval Studies 5: 102-114 (1943).

     

  37. Rashed Marwan. Essentialisme. Alexandre d'Aphrodise entre logique, physique et cosmologie. Berlin: de Gruyter 2007.

     

  38. Sedley David. Plato's auctoritas and the rebirth of the Commentary tradition. In Philosophia togata II. Plato and Aristotle at Rome. Edited by Barnes Jonathan and Griffin Miriam. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1997. pp. 110-129
    "In this paper I shall be considering the emergence, or rather re-emergence, of Platonic commentary around the end of the Hellenistic age. That is the period which forms the essential background to our chief surviving specimens of the genre, the great fifth-century Platonic commentaries of Proclus. Specifically, I intend to examine why Platonic philosophy came to such a large extent to take the form of commentary, and how the resources of the commentary format were deployed for the task of establishing, preserving, and exploiting Plato's philosophical authority.
    I have explored this theme, mainly with reference to the Epicureans, in [226] 97-119. The present paper tries to take the same discussion further, with occasional modifications to what I said there.
    For three reasons, Rome provides a peculiarly apt vantage-point from which to observe the process. First, the philosophical centre of gravity having shifted away from Athens, Rome had now become more of a magnet to philosophers than at any previous time. Both Philo of Larissa and Antiochus of Ascalon, who fought for Plato's mantle in the Academy's dying phase, were known at Rome, and each had close links with a network of influential Roman figures. Second, by far our most voluminous and eloquent witness to that battle is a Roman, Cicero. And third, the Romans had one unusual advantage over the Greeks. They had the right word: auctoritas. As the Greeks themselves admitted, auctoritas was a concept inexpressible in their own language Yet it is this Latin word which, by combining the notions of leadership, ownership, prestige, and validation, most informatively conveys the commanding status that the founder (the auctor) of a Greek philosophical system held in the eyes of its subsequent adherents. Such a linguistic advantage, along with his lifetime adhesion to the Academy, makes Cicero a uniquely valuable witness to, and commentator on, the refurbishment of Plato's auctoritas among first-century BC Academics. (Just because the Greek language could not express the notion of auctoritas, it does not follow that the phenomenon which it describes was absent from Greek philosophical schools.) And without an understanding of that background, there is no hope of seeing how and why, in the immediate aftermath, Platonists turned to the writing of commentaries.
    To illuminate the renaissance of Platonic commentary, I can make no use of the numerous indirect reports of Middle Platonist commentators. Nor can I do much with our considerable evidence for the interpretations of Plato which held the field from the late first century BC to the late second century AD. Most of it comes from epitomes, treatises, and indirect reports which do not directly display the process of textual exegesis, even though this undoubtedly lies just below their surface. It is only when we have the actual words of the commentators in front of us that we can examine their exegetical techniques in adequate depth." pp. 110-111

     

  39. Sellars John. The Aristotelian Commentators: a bibliographical guide. In Philosophy, science and exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries (Vol. One). Edited by Adamson Peter, Baltussen Han, and Stone M.W.F. London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London 2004. pp. 239-268

     

  40. Tuominen Miira. The ancient Commentators on Plato and Aristotle. Stocksfield: Acumen 2009.
    Contents: Acknowledgements VI; Abbreviations VII; Chronology IX-X; 1. Introduction; 2. Epistemology 41; 3. Science and logic 70; 4. Physics 118; 5. Psychology: perception and intellect 158; 6. Metaphysics 200; 7. Ethics 237; 8. Conclusion 280; Notes 288; Further reading 301; Bibliography 306; Index 320-324.

    "The aim and organization of this book.
    The main objective of this book is to offer a philosophically focused introduction to the ancient commentators. (...)
    There is a wealth of material in the commentaries themselves but no general introduction comparable to this one exists. During the past twenty years, more and more texts by the commentators have become available to English-speaking students and scholars in the translation series led by Sorabji. Sorabji has also edited a sourcebook (2004) that contains a selection of translated texts with brief introductions. Scholars working in continental Europe (such as Hadot's group at the National Centre for Scientific Research [CNRS] in France) have produced considerable research, as well as new editions, on the commentaries. All these works make the commentaries much more accessible than they used to be. However, none of these works serves exactly as an introduction to the topic.
    In order to introduce the commentators as philosophers, some restrictions have been necessary. Anything like a complete overview of the commentators' thought would be unimaginable. The text material is simply too large, not to mention the fact that the group that could justifiably be called "ancient commentators" would include many more than the authors studied in this volume. The selection of material concentrates on themes that have been found philosophically inspiring during most periods of the history of Western philosophy. They also are themes that were central in the commentaries themselves. Methodologically speaking, the discussions in
    this book start from generally recognized philosophical problems or themes (such as the nature and possibility of knowledge, explanatory principles of nature, the nature of reality, the content of a good human life and so forth) and ask how the commentators formulated questions related to these themes and how they answered them. The most important reason for choosing this approach is that it helps integrate the commentators into the continuum of thinkers who work in different historical periods, employ different methods and follow divergent meta-philosophical guidelines." pp. 14-16

     

  41. Wildberg Christian, "Three Neoplatonic introductions to philosophy: Ammonius, David and Elias," Hermathena 149: 33-51 (1991).

     

CRITICAL EDITIONS OF THE EXTANT GREEK COMMENTARIES TO ARISTOTLE'S METAPHYSICS

The critical edition of reference is: Commentaria in Aristotelem graeca (CAG) edita consilio et auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Regiae Borussicae Berolini: G. Reimeri, 1882-1909, 23 voll. (This edition has been reprinted by Walter de Gruyter, Berlin).

Commentaries to Aristotle Metaphysics:

Vol. I: Alexandri Aphrodisiensis in Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria - Edited by Michael Hayduck (1891): Commentary to books 1-5 (Alexander of Aphrodisias died in the early third century CE)

Vol. V: Themistii In Aristotelis Metaphysicorum librum [Lambda] paraphrasis hebraice et latine - Edited by Samuel Landauer (1903): Commentary to book 12 (Themistius died 388)

Vol. VI.I: Syriani in metaphysica commentaria - Edited by Wilhelm Kroll (1902): Commentary to books  3-4 and 13-14 (Syrianus died c. 437)

Vol. VI.II: Asclepii in Aristotelis metaphysicorum libros A-Z Commentaria - Edited by Michael Hayduck (1888): Commentary to books 1-7 (Asclepius Trallianus' commentary is based on the notes by Ammonius (ca. 435/445 - 517/526), son Hermeias)

 

Scholia Graeca in Aristotelis Metaphysica - Edited by Christian August Brandis - Berlin, Reimer, 1837

 

TRANSLATIONS OF THE GREEK COMMENTARIES TO ARISTOTLE'S METAPHYSICS

  1. Alexander of Aphrodisias. On Aristotle Metaphysics 1. Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1989.
    Translated by W. E. Dooley

     

  2. Alexander of Aphrodisias. On Aristotle Metaphysics 2-3. Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1992.
    Translated by W. E. Dooley and A. Madigan

     

  3. Alexander of Aphrodisias. On Aristotle Metaphysics 4. Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1993.
    Translated by A. Madigan

     

  4. Alexander of Aphrodisias. On Aristotle Metaphysics 5. Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1993.
    Translated by W. E. Dooley

     

  5. Syrianus. On Aristotle Metaphysics 3-4. Ithaca: Cornell University Press 2008.
    Translated by D. O'Meara and J. Dillon

     

  6. Syrianus. On Aristotle Metaphysics 13-14. Ithaca: Cornell University Press 2006.
    Translated by D. O'Meara and J. Dillon

     

  7. Thémistius. Paraphrase de la Métaphysique d'Aristote (livre Lambda). Paris: Vrin 1999.
    Traduction de l'hébreu et de l'arabe, introduction, notes et indices par Rémi Brague.

     

  8. Alessandro di Afrodisia. Commentario alla "Metafisica" di Aristotele. Milano: Bompiani 2007.
    Traduzione del commento ai libri 1-5 di Alessandor di Afrodisia ed ai libri 6-14 dello pseudo-Alessandro a cura di Giancarlo Movia; traduzioni, presentazioni, note, sommari di Alessandra Borgia [et al.]; notizie sugli autori e indice dei concetti di Rita Salis. Testo greco a fronte.

     

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ON THE GREEK COMMENTARIES TO ARISTOTLE'S METAPHYSICS

  1. Alessandro di Afrodisia e la 'Metafisica' di Aristotele. Edited by Movia Giancarlo. Milano: Vita e Pensiero 2005.

     

  2. Alexandru Stefan, "A new manuscript of Pseudo-Philoponus' Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics containing a hitherto unknown ascription of the work," Phronesis 44: 347-352 (1999).

     

  3. Bonelli Maddalena. Alessandro di Afrodisia e la metafisica come scienza dimostrativa. Napoli: Bibliopolis 2001.

     

  4. Bonelli Maddalena, "Alessandro di Afrodisia e la metafisica scientifica," Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale 12: 61-84 (2001).

     

  5. Cardullo Loredana, "Siriano nella storiografia filosofica moderna e contemporanea," Siculorum Gymnasius 40: 71-182 (1987).

     

  6. Cardullo Rosa Loredana. Syrianus défenseur de Platon contre Aristote selon le témoignage d'Asclépius. In Contre Platon. Le platonisme dévoilé. Edited by Dixsaut Monique. Paris: Vrin 1993. pp. 197-214

     

  7. D'Ancona Cristina. Syrianus dans la tradition exégétique de la Métaphysique d'Aristote. II. Antécédents et posterité. In Le Commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Edited by Goulet-Cazé Marie-Odile. Paris: Vrin 2000. pp. 311-327
    Actes du Colloque International de l'Institut des Traditions Textuelles (Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1999)

     

  8. Diem Gudrum, "Les traductions gréco-latines de la Métaphysique au moyen âge: le problème de la Metaphysica Vetus," Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 49: 7-71 (1967).
    "Les quatre traductions latines de la Métaphysique au moyen âge, faites directement à partir du grec, sont intimement liées entre elles, soit par des relations entre les textes originaux tels qu'on peut les reconstituer, soit par la tradition des manuscrits. Il n'est pas possible de discuter de l'une d'entre elles séparément des autres.
    On résumera d'abord les résultats qui ont été acquis par les diverses recherches jusqu'à présent pour déterminer les problèmes qui se posent. Ensuite, on examinera en détail quelques questions concernant les trois plus anciennes traductions, en particulier le problème de la Metaphysica Vetus et de ses relations aux deux autres traductions. Dans une annexe, on donnera, outre un tableau des mss, certaines informations concernant les exemplaires grecs de la Metaphysica Vetustissima et de la Metaphysica Vetus." p. 7

     

  9. Genequand Charles, "L'objet de la métaphysique selon Alexandre d'Aphrodisias," Museum Helveticum 36: 48-57 (1979).

     

  10. Goulet Richard and Aouad Maroun. Alexandros d'Aphrodisias. In Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques. Vol. I. Edited by Goulet Richard. Paris: Éditions du CNRS 1989. pp. 125-139

     

  11. Guldentops Guy, "La science suprème selon Thémistius," Revue de Philosophie Ancienne 19: 99-120 (2001).

     

  12. Hadot Ilsetraut. Recherches sur les fragments du commentaire de Simplicius sur la Métaphysique di Aristote. In Simplicius. Sa vie, son oeuvre, sa survie. Edited by Hadot Ilsetraut. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 1987. pp. 225-245
    Actes du Colloque Internationale de Paris (28 septembre - 1 octobre 1985).

     

  13. Hecquet-Devienne Myriam, "L'authenticité de Métaphysique "Alpha" (meizon ou elatton) d'Aristotle, un faux problème? Une confirmation codicologique," Phronesis 50: 129-149 (2005).
    "La discussion sur l'authenticité du deuxième livre de la Métaphysique d'Aristote (Petit Alpha), qui dure depuis un millénaire, a pour origine une scholie qui se trouve dans le Parisinus gr. 1853 (Xe siècle) à la jonction du premier et du deuxième livre. Or, cette scholie a été copiée par la même main que celle qui a ajouté une scholie d'un contenu comparable à la fin de la Métaphysique de Théophraste. Ce fait était passé inaperçu, parce que ce scribe a utilisé différentes écritures: droite ou penchée, calligraphique ou cursive. L'ensemble des témoignages et indices déjà examinés par Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem, d'une part, et par Enrico Berti, d'autre part, est analysé et réinterprété à la lumière de cette nouvelle information, qui permet d'établir que c'est le premier livre de la Métaphysique, et non le deuxième, qui était attribué par certains à Pasiclès de Rhodes, comme en témoignait déjà Asclépios.
    Le contenu et la formulation très proches des deux scholies permettent de penser qu'elles viennent d'un même érudit: à l'aide, notamment, des commentaires d'Alexandre et d'Asclépios à la Métaphysique d'Aristote, de l'étude de Nicolas de Damas ou des catalogues d'Hermippe et d'Andronicos, il a préparé une 'édition' d'Aristote destinée à devenir un modèle de référence.
    Dans la tradition latine, Grand Alpha a été accidentellement attribué à Théophraste à cause de la seconde scholie. Mais la discussion dont témoigne la première scholie a pu également être provoquée dès l'origine par celle que rapporte la seconde scholie: la Métaphysique de Théophraste avait probablement été transmise comme un traité aristotélicien, jusqu'à ce que Nicolas de Damas en restitue la paternité à Théophraste; par suite, l'authenticité d' autres livres du corpus aristotélicen a pu également être mise en doute, mais parce qu'ils posaient des problémes d' ordre éditorial, il y a deux millénaires déjá."

     

  14. Kremer Klaus. Der Metaphysikbegriff in den Aristoteles-Kommentaren der Ammonius Schule. Münster: Aschendoff 1961.

     

  15. Lortie François, "Le Commentaire d'Asclépius à la Métaphysique d'Aristote (Livre Alpha, Chapitres 1 et 2). Introduction, traduction annotée et étude doctrinale", 2007.
    Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures de l'Université Laval dans le cadre du programme de maîtrise en philosophie pour l'obtention du grade de maître es arts (M. A.).

    "Bien que plusieurs études aient été consacrées à Asclépius de Tralles (Vie siècle), disciple du néoplatonicien Ammonius à Alexandrie, on ne dispose à ce jour d'aucune traduction de son commentaire aux livres A-Z de la Métaphysique d'Aristote. Puisqu'il constitue l'un des plus précieux témoignages de la réception des doctrines métaphysiques du Stagirite au sein de l'école néoplatonicienne, nous avons jugé bon d'entreprendre la première traduction en langue moderne de cet ouvrage. Comme la pleine compréhension de l'exégèse d'Asclépius n'est possible qu'à la lumière de son contexte historico-philosophique, nous avons d'abord présenté la tradition des commentaires grecs à la Métaphysique d'Aristote. Nous avons ensuite offert une traduction annotée des premières pages du commentaire d'Asclépius, à savoir de son prologue et des deux premiers chapitres du livre Alpha. Enfin, nous avons rédigé une étude doctrinale concernant les principaux enjeux philosophiques de la section traduite du commentaire: la division du prologue exégétique en questions capitales, le concept d'appréhension simple et les rapports entre les intelligibles, Dieu et le Bien."

     

  16. Luna Concetta. Syrianus dans la tradition exégétique de la Métaphysique d'Aristote. I. Syrianus entre Alexandre d'Aphrodise et Asclépius. In Le Commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Edited by Goulet-Cazé Marie-Odile. Paris: Vrin 2000. pp. 301-309
    Actes du Colloque International de l'Institut des Traditions Textuelles (Paris et Villejuif, 22-25 septembre 1999)

     

  17. Luna Concetta. Trois études sur la tradition des commentaires anciens à la Métaphysique d'Aristote. Leiden: Brill 2001.
    Table des Matières: Avant-propos VII-VIII; Étude I: Les commentaires de Syrianus et du Ps. Alexandre sur la Mètaphysique. Essai de mise au point 1; Étude II: Le commentaire d'Alexandre d'Aphrodise comme source du commentiare de Syrianus 72; Étude III: Alexandre d'Aphrodise et Syrianus comme sources du commentiare d'Asclépius 99; Conclusions 187; Appendices I-IX 191-226; Index 227-251.

    See the review by Leonard Tarán - La tradition des commentaires à la Métaphysique d'Aristote - Gnomon, 53 (2005), pp. 196-209.

     

  18. Luna Concetta. La Métaphysique. Tradition grecque. Les commentaires grecs à la Métaphysique. In Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques. Supplément. Edited by Goulet Richard. Paris: Éditions du CNRS 2003. pp. 249-258

     

  19. Luna Concetta, "Alessando di Afrodisia e Siriano sul libro B della Metafisica: tecnica e struttura del commento," Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale 15: 39-79 (2004).

     

  20. Narbonne Jean-Marc. La reformulation néoplatonicienne de la Métaphysique grecque. In Y a-t-il une histoire de la métaphysique? Edited by Zarka Yves Charles and Pinchard Bruno. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France 2005. pp. 83-97

     

  21. Narcy Michel. La Métaphysique. Tradition grecque. Origine et titre. In Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques. Supplément. Edited by Goulet Richard. Paris: Éditions du CNRS 2003. pp. 224-229

     

  22. Pines Salomon. Les limites de la métaphysique selon al-Farabi, Ibn-Bassa et Maimonides: sources et anthèses de ces doctrines chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise et chez Themistius. In Sprache und Erkenntnis im Mittelalter. Vol. I. Berlin: de Gruyter 1981. pp.

     

  23. Pines Salomon. Some distinctive metaphysical conceptions in Themistius' commentary on Book Lambda and their place in the history of philosophy. In Aristoteles Werk und Wirkung. Vol II. Edited by Wiesner Jünger. Berlin: de Gruyter 1987. pp. 177-204

     

  24. Saffrey Henry Dominique. Comment Syrianus, le maître de l'école néoplationicienne d'Athènes, considérait-il Aristote? In Aristoteles Werk und Wirkung. Vol II. Edited by Wiesner Jünger. Berlin: de Gruyter 1987. pp. 205-214
    Translated as: How did Syrianus regard Aristotle? - in: R. Sorabji (ed.) - Aristotle Transformed - pp. 173-179.

     

  25. Salis Rita. La pluralità dei cieli e dei motori immobili secondo lo pseudo Alessandro. Cagliari: Edizioni AV 2000.
    Il commento dello pseudo Alessandro al cap. VIII del libro XII della metafisica di Aristotele.

     

  26. Salis Rita. La metafisica come teologia. Cagliari: Edizioni AV 2000.
    Il commento delle pseudo Alessandro al libro XII della Metafisica di Aristotele.

     

  27. Sharples Robert W. Alexander of Aphrodisias: Scholasticism and innovation. In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Edited by Haase Wolfgang. Berlin: de Gruyter 1987. pp. 1176-1243
    Vol. 36.2: Platonismus [continuation], Aristotelismus.

     

  28. Tarán Leonardo. Syrianus and Pseudo-Alexander's Commentary on Metaphysics E-N. In Aristoteles Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux Gewidmet. Vol. II: Kommentierung Überlieferung, Nachleben. Edited by Wiesner Jünger. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 1987. pp. 215-232
    Reprinted in: L. Tarán - Collected papers (1962-1999) - Leiden, Brill, 2001, n. 27, pp. 525-543.

     

  29. Verbeke Gerard. Aristotle's Metaphysics viewed by the Ancient Greek Commentators. In Studies in Aristotle. Edited by O'Meara Dominic. Washington: Catholic University of America Press 1982. pp. 107-127

     

  30. Verrycken Koenraad. The metaphysics of Ammonius son of Hermeias. In Aristotle transformed. The Ancient Commentators and their influence. Edited by Sorabji Richard. Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1990. pp. 199-231

     

  31. Verrycken Koenraad, "La métaphysique d'Ammonius chez Zacharie de Mytilène," Revue des Science Philosophiques et Théologiques 85: 241-266 (2001).

     

EXTERNAL LINKS

Andrea Falcon "Commentators on Aristotle", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

John Sellars - The Aristotelian Commentators. A Bibliographic Guide (2004 - PDF)

Erik Norvelle - Chronology of Aristotelian Commentators Prior to Aquinas (PDF)

 

RELATED PAGES

 

ontology: valid xhtml 1.0 strict

Last modified: Monday, February 08, 2010