Heroic Virtue In The Commentary Tradition On The Nicomachean Ethics In The Second Half Of The Thirteenth Century

2008 ◽  
pp. 151-172
Keyword(s):  
Thirteenth Century ◽  
Nicomachean Ethics ◽  
Commentary Tradition

Egypt and the Later Ashʿarite School

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Spevack
Keyword(s):  
Thirteenth Century ◽  
Muslim World ◽  
Comparative Theology ◽  
Growing Body ◽  
Study Development ◽  
Commentary Tradition

This chapter discusses the development and contours of late Ashʿarism in Egypt, with reference to some of the key texts, scholars, and concepts that are representative of Egyptian Ashʿarism. Evidence of a vibrant intellectual endeavour can be gleaned from the (a) continued study, development, and nuanced discussion of the rational sciences by Egyptian Ashʿarīs, (b) the prominent role that post-thirteenth-century Persian and Maghribī scholars play in the discourse, and (c) the continued discussions of philosophy, Sufi metaphysics, comparative theology, and various interpretive methodologies found in the often dismissed commentary tradition. From this vital synthesis of Maghribī, Persian, and local influences with which Egyptian scholars critically engaged, the continued vibrancy and diversity of thought is evident, thereby contributing to the growing body of literature challenging the popular theory of intellectual decline and stagnation in the Muslim world.

Robert Grosseteste as Translator, Transmitter, and Commentator: The ‘Nicomachean Ethics’

Traditio ◽  
1972 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 460-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Dunbabin
Keyword(s):  
Middle Ages ◽  
Thirteenth Century ◽  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Dynamic Study ◽  
Nicomachean Ethics ◽  
John Of Salisbury ◽  
Posterior Analytics ◽  
Slow Progress ◽  
Aristotelian Ethics ◽  
The Middle Ages

Because Robert Grosseteste's translation of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is now seen as having provided the framework for a dynamic study of Aristotle's moral philosophy, more significance must be attached to what itself became the standard translation in the Middle Ages. That Grosseteste was responsible both for the full translation of Aristotle's text and for the translation of the Greek commentaries which accompany the Ethics in twenty-one known manuscripts modern scholars are now in agreement. Grosseteste's work on the Nicomachean Ethics has been dated confidently to the 1240s, arguably to 1246–47, and scholars have tended to stress the rapidity with which the Aristotelian ethics were assimilated in the thirteenth century, in contrast, for example, with the slow progress recorded by John of Salisbury on the Posterior Analytics in the twelfth. These results of recent research seem, it should be notd in passing, strangely at odds with the verdict of Roger Bacon, that there was comparatively little work on the Ethics in his period. He, Grosseteste's most ardent admirer, appears not to have known that this master translated the text and comments: ‘Tardius communicata est Ethica Aristotelis et nuper lecta a magistris et raro.’

An Unpublished Late Thirteenth-Century Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle

Traditio ◽  
1959 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 299-326
Author(s):  
Kimon Giocarinis
Keyword(s):  
Thirteenth Century ◽  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Nicomachean Ethics ◽  
University Library ◽  
University Of Wisconsin ◽  
Human Happiness ◽  
The University

Codex 485 (213) of the University Library of Erlangen contains an anonymous commentary, by questions, on the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle commencing on fol. 47r and ending on fol. 80v. In 1930, M. Grabmann called attention to this commentary as one of the sources of the thesis that God cannot be the immediate source of human happiness — a thesis condemned in 1277 by Stephen Tempier along with 218 other ‘heretical’ doctrines. Professor Gaines Post of the University of Wisconsin had a photostatic copy made of the manuscript in question and Miss N. Koskenlinna, a former student of his, performed the painful task of its transliteration. The object of this article is the description and analysis of this unpublished, late thirteenthcentury exposition of the moral philosophy of Aristotle.

The Colorless History of Pseudo-Aristotle’s De coloribus

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 254-288
Author(s):  
Lisa Devriese
Keyword(s):  
Thirteenth Century ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Reception History ◽  
Medieval Latin ◽  
Latin West ◽  
History Of ◽  
Main Factors ◽  
Commentary Tradition

Abstract This article examines the medieval reception history of De coloribus. This pseudo-Aristotelian treatise on colors was translated from Greek into Latin in the thirteenth century, but the question of its success and use by contemporary scholars has not yet received any attention. After an examination of its medieval commentary tradition, the marginal glosses, and the first attestations, I conclude that De coloribus was scarcely used in the medieval Latin West, although the translation survived in a significant number of manuscripts. In the second part of the article, I look into some possible explanations for this limited reception history. One of the main factors is the availability of several alternative discussions on color in the Aristotelian corpus as well as in the non-Aristotelian scientific literature.

Shame and Virtue in Aristotle

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher C. Raymond
Keyword(s):  
Nicomachean Ethics ◽  
Virtuous Person ◽  
Ethical Problems ◽  
Alexander Of Aphrodisias ◽  
Eudemian Ethics ◽  
Sense Of Shame ◽  
Commentary Tradition

In Nicomachean Ethics 4. 9 Aristotle gives two arguments for why aidōs, or a sense of shame, is not a virtue. The chapter has puzzled readers: both arguments seem to conflict with things he says elsewhere in the NE, and neither is persuasive in its own right. This paper reconstructs Aristotle’s position on aidōs by drawing on the ancient commentary tradition, relevant passages from the Eudemian Ethics, and the analysis of ‘civic’ courage in NE 3. 8. It is shown that Aristotle has stronger reasons for denying that aidōs is a virtue than at first appears, given his distinction between acting from the fear of disrepute and acting for the sake of the fine. The paper concludes by arguing that his view is nevertheless untenable, since it ignores the fact that even a virtuous person can be subject to disrepute. This criticism stems from Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentary in Ethical Problems 21.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document