Neoplatonism by Dragos Calma
One of the most important texts in the history of medieval philosophy, the "Book of Causes" was c... more One of the most important texts in the history of medieval philosophy, the "Book of Causes" was composed in Baghdad in the 9th century mainly from the Arabic translations of Proclus' "Elements of Theology". In the 12th century, it was translated from Arabic into Latin, but its importance in the Latin tradition was not properly studied until now, because only 6 commentaries on it were known. Our exceptional discovery of over 70 unpublished Latin commentaries mainly on the "Book of Causes", but also on the "Elements of Theology", prove, for the first time, that the two texts where widely disseminated and commented on throughout many European universities (Paris, Oxford, Erfurt, Krakow, Prague), from the 13th to the 16th century. These two volumes provide 13 editions (partial or complete) of the newly-discovered commentaries, and yields, through historical and philosophical analyses, new and essential insights into the influence of Greek and Islamic Neoplatonism in the Latin philosophical traditions.
One of the most important texts in the history of medieval philosophy, the "Book of Causes" was c... more One of the most important texts in the history of medieval philosophy, the "Book of Causes" was composed in Baghdad in the 9th century mainly from the Arabic translations of Proclus' "Elements of Theology". In the 12th century, it was translated from Arabic into Latin, but its importance in the Latin tradition was not properly studied until now, because only 6 commentaries on it were known. Our exceptional discovery of over 70 unpublished Latin commentaries mainly on the "Book of Causes", but also on the "Elements of Theology", prove, for the first time, that the two texts where widely disseminated and commented on throughout many European universities (Paris, Oxford, Erfurt, Krakow, Prague), from the 13th to the 16th century. These two volumes provide 13 editions (partial or complete) of the newly-discovered commentaries, and yields, through historical and philosophical analyses, new and essential insights into the influence of Greek and Islamic Neoplatonism in the Latin philosophical traditions.
Moosburg on Proclus’ Elements of Theology. The breadth of its vision surpasses every other known ... more Moosburg on Proclus’ Elements of Theology. The breadth of its vision surpasses every other known commentary on the Elements of Theology, for it seeks to present a coherent account of the Platonic tradition as such (unified through the concord of Proclus and Dionysius) and at the same time to consolidate and transform a legacy of metaphysics developed in the German-speaking lands by Peripatetic authors (like Albert the Great, Ulrich of Strassburg, and Dietrich of Freiberg). This volume aims to provide a basis for further research and discussion of this unduly overlooked commentary, whose historical-philosophical importance as an attempt to refound Western metaphysics is beginning to be recognized.
This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 license. * Dragos ... more This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 license. * Dragos Calma was responsible for drafting section 1 and 3; Evan King for section 2. The section 4 was jointly written. This research was undertaken within the framework of the erc research project CoG_NeoplAT 771640. 1 ms Vat. lat. 2419 , f. 105va: Procly dyadochy lycii platonici phylosophi Elementatario (!) theologica explicit capitulum 211. Completa fuit translatio huius operis Viterbii a fratre G⟨uillelmo⟩ de Morbecca ordinis fratrum predicatorum XV Kalendis Iunii anno domini millesimo CC°LX°octavo. The same colophon can be read in ms Cambridge, Peterhouse, 121 , f. 202rb. Cf. L. Miolo , "Le Liber de causis et l'Elementatio theologica dans deux bibliothèques anglaises: Merton College (Oxford) et Peterhouse (Cambridge)", in D. Calma (ed.), Reading Proclus and the Book of Causes. Vol. 1. Western Scholarly Networks and Debates (Leiden: Brill, 2019), p. 120-150. 2 It is worth recalling that there are (at least) four other translations into Latin of the Elements of Theology: one by Franciscus Patricius (Procli Lycii diadochi platonici philosophi eminentissimi Elementa theologica, et physica opus omnis admiratione prosequendum, Ferrara, Apud Dominicum Mamarellum, 1583); one by Aemilius Portus , who published it together with the Greek text, preceded by the bilingual (Latin-Greek) texts of the Theologia platonica and Marinus ' Vita, and followed by the 55 Conclusiones on the Elements by Pico della Mirandola (Procli successoris platonici philosophi Institutio Theologica quae continet capita 211 [Hamburg: Apud Rulandios, 1618], p. 415-502). The bilingual edition and translation of Aemilius Portus is reprinted (with adjustments) and dedicated to Hegel by F. Creuzer in 1823 (Frankfurt a.M.: In o���cina Broenneriana). One should also consider that the Elements is extensively cited by Nicholas of Methone in his Refutation, which was translated into Latin twice: by an anonymous translator from the sixteenth century (ms Milan, Ambr. Lat., P 63) and by Bonaventura Vulcanius (d. ca. 1614), the autograph being preserved in ms Leiden, b.p.l., 47. Marsilio Ficino famously claimed that he translated the Elements, but there is no clear evidence for it. On this topic see D. Robichaud , "Fragments of Marsilio Ficino's Translations and Use of Proclus '
Arabic sciences and philosophy, 2021
Abstract. This article proposes a first systematic approach to the manuscript tradition of the Li... more Abstract. This article proposes a first systematic approach to the manuscript tradition of the Liber de causis. It studies both the manuscript variants and the doctrinal difficulties raised by the transliteration of the Arabic al-ʿaql preserved in the Latin translation. Some authors (such as Albert the Great) interpreted this transliteration as a concept forged by Arab philosophers without an equivalent in Latin. Other authors (such as Thomas Aquinas and Giles of Rome) do not mention it because they probably knew a different branch of the manuscript tradition. By examining one hundred and ten Latin manuscripts of the Liber de causis (out of two hundred and sixty-five currently known), the article establishes a list of the numerous variations regarding the presence of this transliteration in the text and its forms or spellings (alatyr, alachili, adlahic etc.). This analysis enables a better understanding of both Albert’s position and the hitherto unsuspected diversity of the transmission of the Liber de causis in the Latin West.
This paper analysis and publishes John Krosbein's (fl. 14th c.) commentary on the 'Book of Causes... more This paper analysis and publishes John Krosbein's (fl. 14th c.) commentary on the 'Book of Causes'. He commentend upon all the works of Aristotle, and judging by the number of manuscripts, he was read in numerous schools in the Holly Roman Empire (today Germany and Poland). How can one explain the success of Krosbein’s commentaries? His undertaking is characterised by a concise and very synthetic explication of the text, unlike the endeavours of Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas which were far too detailed to function as brisk introductions to Aristotle’s works, the pseudepigraphal treatises ('Liber de causis', 'De proprietatibus elementorum') and the 'Elements of Theology'. Krosbein’s method for reducing the length of his commentary consists mainly in selecting passages which seem important to him; in the case of the 'Book of Causes' and the 'Elements of Theology', he comments chiefly on the theorems and rarely appeals to secondary propositions. Within the academic system Krosbein’s paraphrases played a very useful role. Suitable for propaedeutic instruction in philosophy, they familiarised students with texts and doctrines which could be further developed over the course of their studies at the university. These commentaries likely functioned as successful introductory volumes, similar to the Handbook of or Companion to of our time.
Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales 85(1), 71-108
Scholars have examined a commentary on the Book of Causes attributed to Adam
of Bocfeld for almo... more Scholars have examined a commentary on the Book of Causes attributed to Adam
of Bocfeld for almost a century. Yet little progress has been made regarding its
dating, authenticity, and doctrines. This paper tackles some of these issues arguing
that the commentary (1) was most probably written between 1251 and
1263/1265, (2) has striking similarities with some works attributed to Roger
Bacon, and (3) contains an interesting discussion of Averroes’ doctrine of the
unity of the intellect. The article also indicates the influence of this commentary
on fifteenth-century authors and offers a partial edition of its question 1.
In this paper we examine and publish the entire commentary on the 'Book of Causes' attributed to ... more In this paper we examine and publish the entire commentary on the 'Book of Causes' attributed to John of Mallignes, arguably the same person as the proctor of University of Paris who defended the masters of arts before Pope Martin IV. In a very complex and detailed analysis of the 'Book of Causes', John of Mallignes uses several Parisian authors (Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Siger of Brabant) and he argues agains the idea that God alone created all realities; the reason for this is that it is in God's nature to refuse solitary causality and to share with other separated substances (or causes) the production of the world and all its beings.
This paper analysis and partially edits an anonymous commentary preserved in the MS Augsburg Staa... more This paper analysis and partially edits an anonymous commentary preserved in the MS Augsburg Staats und Stadtbibliothek 4° Cod. 68. The commentary is filled with implicit and explicit citations. The principal importance of the text lies in its relationship to the exegetical tradition of the Liber de causis, and, more precisely, in the manner in which it creates a dialogue between the theses of its predecessors, with a clear preference for Albert the Great, while he mentions Thomas Aquinas much less often and criticises him openly.
This article analyses and publishes the commentary on the Book of Causes by an anonymous author f... more This article analyses and publishes the commentary on the Book of Causes by an anonymous author from the University of Paris from the last decades of the 13th century. He knew and used the commentaries on the Book of Causes by Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Siger of Brabant and Giles of Rome and he extensively cited Averroes. The anonymous propounded a noetics based on a double relation between substance, potency and body, arguing for the possibility of the priority of the operational union between mind and body compared to their substantial union. Interpreting the 4th proposition of the Book of Causes, the anonymous authors claims that prime matter was created ex nihilo and immediately by the first cause. The understanding of the 4th proposition of the Book of Causes in relation with the doctrine of the prime matter occurs (only) in the later reading of John Wyclif.
The questio studied and edited in this paper is transmitted by two manuscripts; it was publicly d... more The questio studied and edited in this paper is transmitted by two manuscripts; it was publicly disputed by the Rector of the University of Erfurt, Henry of Gheismar in 1414. The article analyses the literary genre of questio de quolibet developed in Central Europe at the end of the 14th and the beginning of the 15th century; and presents some of the most important features of Henry's doctrines on cause and causality. Henry of Geismar chooses to go back to the tradition predating Albert the Great's commentary and to treat the Neoplatonic model of causality according to the model of Aristotelian causality. Henry compares the different causes within a genus to each other (as does Thomas Aquinas) and introduces a new analysis by comparing the causes of different genera to one another (for example the formal cause to the material, the efficient cause to the final). He also considers the possibility of a primary cause in a genus which influences more (plus) than a secondary cause of another genus.
The newly discovered commentaries prove that there is no gap between the reception of Greek and I... more The newly discovered commentaries prove that there is no gap between the reception of Greek and Islamic Neoplatonism in the West with the Latin translation of 'Liber de causis' by Gerard of Cremona († 1187) and the commentary of Ambrogio Fiandino († 1532), one of the last authors whose commentary is still extant. It seems possible to demonstrate that these texts are not a mass of commentaries disconnected from one another, but rather an exegetical tradition constituted primarily around the 'Liber de causis' (the 'Elements of Theology' is commented on much less often).
Latin Averroism by Dragos Calma
Studi di erudizione e di filologia italiana, 2021
Verona, with its Ghibelline league, is the first common point between Dante and Antonio da Parma.... more Verona, with its Ghibelline league, is the first common point between Dante and Antonio da Parma. The Quaestio de aqua et terra is the second. And the doctrine of ‘active intelligences’ is the third. By studying the same historical background and the same rather rare doctrines, it is legitimate to wonder if the similarities observed between the two authors are only coincidences, explained by the context. An affirmative answer, in Dante’s case, is as seductive as it is perilous. In this contribution, my task is more modest: to rethink and analyze elements that allow us to better understand the little-known figure of Antonio da Parma. He deserves more attention for his probable relationship with Dante, but also for his contribution to the history of philosophy in medieval Italy.
Ce livre est consacré aux auteurs qui ont repris la pensée d’Averroès dans le monde latin entre 1... more Ce livre est consacré aux auteurs qui ont repris la pensée d’Averroès dans le monde latin entre 1250 et 1350. De nouvelles remarques sur la polysémie du terme averroista précèdent les grands thèmes abordés : le retour numériquement identique au corps corrompu, le rapport entre matière et puissance, la nécessité et la contingence, l’intellect agent et possible. Des manuscrits et des textes inédits jusqu’à ce jour sont au coeur des discussions qui apportent la preuve que des doctrines puisées dans l’œuvre d’Averroès circulaient entre les Universités de Paris, Oxford, Bologne et Padoue. Sans prétendre aborder tous les aspects de l'averroïsme latin de cette période, le livre reprend sur nouveaux frais des questions considérées comme résolues et propose de nouvelles perspectives de recherche.
Sectatores Averrois : noétique et cosmologie PRÉSENTATION Dans le récit « La quête d'Averroès », ... more Sectatores Averrois : noétique et cosmologie PRÉSENTATION Dans le récit « La quête d'Averroès », publié pour la première fois en 1947, Jorge Luis Borges voulait , selon son propre témoignage, raconter l'histoire d'un échec : celui d'un homme « qui se proposerait un but qui ne serait pas caché aux autres, mais à lui seul ». Averroès, telle est le noyau de la fiction, voudrait expliquer ce qu'est une tragédie et une comédie sans savoir ce qu'est le théâtre. Le contexte religieux et culturel rend impossible la perception du phénomène visé. Or ce qui compte est le fait que pour Borges la figure du philosophe andalou devienne un symbole de l'homme qu'il fut lui-même pendant qu'il écrivait le récit sur Averroès : « Je compris qu'Averroès s'efforçant de s'imaginer ce qu'est un drame, sans soupçonner ce qu'est un théâtre, n'était pas plus absurde que moi, m'efforçant d'imaginer Averroès, sans autre document que quelques miettes de Renan, de Lane et d'Asin Palacios. » On ne peut nier que l'histoire de l'interprétation de la pensée d'Averroès et surtout celle de sa réception dans le monde latin est comparable à la situation du philosophe dans le récit de Borges. Moins l'histoire d'un simple échec mais celle d'une longue pérégrination au chemin sinueux avec beaucoup de détours. Après les clarifications des enquêtes philologiques et des interprétations philosophiques des dernières années, on était tenté de croire que l'averroïsme latin est plutôt une invention des historiens modernes ou encore des théologiens du XIII e siècle. Les cinq études que nous publions ici attestent, de manière remarquable, qu'en histoire de la philosophie des progrès sont encore possibles. En effet, les études de Jean-Baptiste Brenet, Emanuele Coccia, Iacopo Costa, Dragos Calma et Sylvain Piron, chacune à sa façon, nous obligent à réviser ce que nous pensions savoir sur l'averroïsme latin. Il n'est pas exagéré de prétendre que ces articles qui sont issus d'un séminaire que Dragos Calma a organisé à l'Ecole Normal Supérieure de la rue d'Ulm (Paris), loin de poser seulement de nouvelles questions, exploitent et interprètent des matériaux jusqu'à présent négligés et permettent ainsi de mieux percevoir la signification du terme averroista au XIII e et XIV e siècles. Cet ensemble d'études atteste aussi que le travail acharné, l'enthousiasme et la créativité permettent parfois de découvrir et de faire voir ce qui était caché à soi-même et aux autres.
Italian philosopher and physician, closely related to Dante's intellectual and political milieu
Uploads
Neoplatonism by Dragos Calma
of Bocfeld for almost a century. Yet little progress has been made regarding its
dating, authenticity, and doctrines. This paper tackles some of these issues arguing
that the commentary (1) was most probably written between 1251 and
1263/1265, (2) has striking similarities with some works attributed to Roger
Bacon, and (3) contains an interesting discussion of Averroes’ doctrine of the
unity of the intellect. The article also indicates the influence of this commentary
on fifteenth-century authors and offers a partial edition of its question 1.
Latin Averroism by Dragos Calma