This book is the first study of the ontological system of Alexander of Aphrodisias (floruit c. 200 AD), famous for his commentaries on the works of Aristotle.

Der heute verlorene Kommentar von Alexander aus Aphrodisias zur Physik des Aristoteles ist eines der wichtigsten Werke der Antike: beeinflusste er doch als Quelle sowohl die griechischen Kommentatoren des Aristoteles als auch - vermittelt durch die Araber - die Philosophie des Mittelalters. Die in dieser Ausgabe pr+sentierte Erstedition und Untersuchung der nahezu 700 byzantinischen Scholien, die erst j8ngst entdeckt wurden, erlauben eine genauere Rekonstruktion der physikalischen Lehren Alexanders und tragen zugleich zum besseren Verst+ndnis der Geschichte des Aristotelismus und der vorklassischen (...) Physik bei. (shrink)

Édition commentée des deux fragments de manuscrits littéraires grecs découverts dans la trésorerie du palais d'Aï-Khanoum, dans un contexte daté de 145 av. J.-C. Ces manuscrits avaient été rédigés dans des officines méditerranéennes et sont paléographiquement datables entre le milieu du IIIe et le début du IIe s. av. J.-C. Le premier texte, rédigé sur papyrus, est un dialogue philosophique platonicien ou aristotélicien relatif à la théorie platonicienne des Idées ; le second, rédigé sur parchemin en trimètres iambiques, relève peut-être (...) du genre théâtral. Leur présence à Aï Khanoum atteste l'existence d'une bibliothèque dans le palais de cette cité. (shrink)

This paper intends to present briefly Aristotle’s direct tradition as found in the papyri already published, first in those containing Aristotle’s preserved works, then in those tentatively attributed to his lost works. Some papyrological and philological contributions are offered regarding the text of the first group, in particular by collation of the most recent editions and consideration of the latest studies. As for the second group, the arguments pro and contra Aristotelian authorship are analysed.

I start with two contradictory statements: Jaeger, Aristotle, p. 330: ‘Thus all indications point to a late date for the origin of the philosopher's zoological works.’ D'Arcy Thompson, Historia Animalium, Prefatory Note: ‘It can be shown that Aristotle's natural history studies were carried on, or mainly carried on, in his middle age, between his two periods of residence at Athens.‘.

FOR hundreds or even thousands of years posterity saw in Aristotle only the impersonal intellectual majesty of the philosophical system. When awakening humanism began everywhere to seek in the works of the classic writers the impress of their personality, this new interest met in Aristotle with the most stubborn resistance. His was a very different case from that of Plato or Demosthenes. The few notices preserved of his life and person remained in merely external relation to the body of his (...) works. In recent times we have begun, however, to discern the intellectual history of the man Aristotle, and in this regard his relations to Plato naturally acquire special significance. In the various phases of his life these relations took various forms; but in view of late gossip about the pupil's ingratitude to the master, it is as well to say that never was Aristotle^s attitude to Plato other than one of the deepest possible veneration. It has a special psychological fascination to see how this veneration expressed itself at the time when Aristotle found himself committed to philosophical opposition to his master; and it is significant that the only documentary proofs of Aristotle's attitude that we possess belong to these years. Evidently his veneration found this compensating expression when he was forced to publish his philosophical critisma. (shrink)