hosted by
publicationslist.org
    

Silvia Fazzo

via Paolo Sarpi 9
20154 Milano
silvia.fazzo@unitn.it
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/philosophy/people/staff/associates/research/fazzo/index.aspx

Books

2002
1999

Journal articles

2010
Silvia Fazzo (2010)  “Lo stemma codicum dei libri Kappa e Lambda della Metafisica: una revisione necessaria”   Aevum 2. 339-359  
Abstract: This article is devoted to the textual transmission of Aristotleâs Metaphysics books Kappa and Lambda, with special reference to manuscript Ab (Florence, Laur. 87.12), which often disagrees with the most ancient manuscripts of the Metaphysics(E and J). It has played a prominent part in the XIXth and XXth century editions and has been regarded as evidence for an independent tradition, possibly going back to antiquity, to Aristotleâs times, or to a papyrus exemplar. But it appears that this cannot be true for the last books of the Metaphysics: in 1979 Harlfinger showed that for the final part of book Lambda(1073a to the end) and for the whole of books My and Ny, Ab belongs to the same alpha family as E and J, and therefore it is not a witness to a beta family. In Harlfingerâs footsteps, the present article goes further and argues that this is the case for the final part of book Kappa(1065a to the end) and for the whole of book Lambda.
Notes:
2008
Silvia Fazzo (2008)  The exegesis of the Aristotle's metaphysics book Lambda in De Principiis and Quaestrio I.1 by Alexander of Aphrodisias   LAVAL THEOLOGIQUE ET PHILOSOPHIQUE 64: 3. 607-626 OCT  
Abstract: Alexander of Aphrodisias' continuous commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics book Lambda was already lost in the XIIth century AD. Nevertheless, it kept exercising an influence through the commentary of Averroes and through two other texts of Alexander: the treatise On the Principles of the Universe and the (so called) Quaestio I.1. This article shows that these last two texts both contain a section based on Metaphysics Lambda, chapters 6 ff which brings a confirmation to a fact argued elsewhere, namely, that all of Alexander's texts bear an exegetical character and are built upon Aristotle's texts. Furthermore, a comparison between the text of Lambda and Alexander's interpretation allows us to see the distinctive contribution Of Alexander to what has been traditionally known as Aristotle's theology. Thus, among other things, we owe to Alexander, or to his intermediate sources, the idea that the heavens, being ensouled, are moved in a circle by their desire to imitate the First Mover in its perfect state of quietude. We also owe to Alexander air extended discussion which conflates the theory of Lambda to the related inquiries of Aristotle's Physics VIII.
Notes:
Silvia Fazzo (2008)  “Nicolas, l’auteur du Sommaire de la Philosophie d’Aristote. Doutes sur son identité, sa datation, son origine”   Revue des Etudes Grecques 121: 1. 99-126.  
Abstract: The paper discusses the attribution of the compendium De Philosophia Aristotelis to Nicolaus of Damascus the general historian (fl.: end Ist c. BC). By contrast, there are reasons to believe that the work was written by a Peripatetic Nicolaus between the III and the VI century, most likely from Syria in the IV c. AD. Among the consequences: one piece of evidence for interest in a wide range of Aristotle's works already in the Ist century BC/ Ist century AD is removed; the supposedly earliest evidence for "Metaphysics" as the title of Aristotle's work is moved to a later date; the idea that Peripatetic activity more or less ceased with Alexander, Themistius being the only exception, is weakened by another counter-example. On the contrary, a distinctively Peripatetic culture must have been still alive in Themistius' and Nicolasâ time, when special tools were produced both for teaching activity and for the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to later eras.
Notes: Silvia Fazzo, Mauro Zonta (2008) ARISTOTLE'S THEORY OF CAUSES AND THE HOLY TRINITY NEW EVIDENCE ABOUT THE CHRONOLOGY AND RELIGION OF NICOLAUS "OF DAMASCUS" LAVAL THEOLOGIQUE ET PHILOSOPHIQUE 64: 3. 681-690 OCT
Silvia Fazzo, Mauro Zonta (2008)  ARISTOTLE'S THEORY OF CAUSES AND THE HOLY TRINITY NEW EVIDENCE ABOUT THE CHRONOLOGY AND RELIGION OF NICOLAUS "OF DAMASCUS"   LAVAL THEOLOGIQUE ET PHILOSOPHIQUE 64: 3. 681-690 OCT  
Abstract: The identity and chronology of Nicolaus Peripatheticus, the author of a summary of Aristotle's philosophy, were recently discussed in a paper by Silvia Fazzo published in the Revue des etudes Grecques. The usual dating. based upon the identification of Nicolaus with the famous historian Nicolaus Damascenus, places Nicolaus in the I-st century BC, but Fazzo argues that it is likely that he lived in the period ranging from the 3(rd) to the 5(th) centuries AD, and more likely, during the age of the Roman Emperor Julian (361-363 AD). This hypothesis is supported by a new fragment in Hebrew translation, discovered by Mauro Zonta, where Nicolaus gives an explanation of the Christian doctrine of Gods Trinity in terms of Aristotle's doctrine Of causes : God is one, being a single substance, but He is also three, insofar as He is the efficient, formal, and final causes of the world As far as it is possible for such a short fragment, the authors contend that it is plausible to date it from the age of Julian.
Notes:
2007
2004
Silvia Fazzo (2004)  Aristotelianism as a Commentary Tradition   Supplement of the Bulletin of the Institute for Classical Studies 1-19  
Abstract:
Notes: published in: Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries, edited by Peter Adamson, Han Baltussen and M.W.F. Stone
2003
Silvia Fazzo (2003)  “L’aristotelismo come tradizione esegetica”   Paradigmi 2: 367-384  
Abstract:
Notes: from the special issue of Paradigmi 62. 2003: âIl pensiero antico: problemi e prospettive, ed. by Mario Vegetti
2002
2000
1999
1998
1995
1993
1991
1988

Book chapters

2009
2005
2004
Silvia Fazzo (2004)  Le De Motu Animalium et la théorie du moteur immobile   In: Aristote et le mouvement des animaux : Dix études sur le De motu animalium Edited by:A. Laks, M. Rashed. 203-229 Université de Lille3 Presses Universitaires du Septentrion isbn:2-85939-840-6  
Abstract: Silvia Fazzo "Sur la composition du traité dit De motu animalium: contribution à l'analyse de la théorie aristotélicienne du premier moteur" from: Aristote et le mouvement des animaux. Dix études sur le De motu animalium. edited by A. Laks, M. Rashed, Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, isbn:2-85939-840-6, 2004, p. 203-229. ABSTRACT. Based on Aristotle's technique of redaction as in other parts of the corpus, the paper firstly raises the question of the DMA's disciplinary relevance. This opens a range of independent perspectives on the DMA's composition and on its value as a whole. The paper thus analyses the DMA as a composition of two (or more) different parts (DMA1 and DMA2, the latter starting with chap. 6). The two parts would be connected by a common prologue (698a1-7, what I label Prologue A), setting a very comprehensive program "on the common cause of any kind of movement", which precedes the introductory remarks of each part (prologues B and C). The first part starts then with an outstanding summary (B) of Phys. VIII which subordinates the primary role of self motion to an unmoved principle for every kind of motion wherever in the world (698a7-11) and indicates the relevant inquiry's method (11-14); whereas the second part introduces an outstanding discussion on ensouled motion (namely: self motion) as a principle for every other motion (C, 6. 700b4-11). The hypothesis is aimed to promote a closer focus on the unique connection between DMA2, â but not of DMA1, â with Metaph. L (whose theory of the prime mover as orekton kai noêton is uniquely legitimated by DMA2e) via a revised theory of voluntary movement where thinking is prior to desire. This theory is less harmonized to the one of DA III (there is no movement without desire), then to the one at Lambda 7 about the primacy of thought (arche de hê noêsis, L 7. 1072a30ff.). As it appears, DMA (6ff.) outstandingly refers to Lambda as an existing treatise, which does not happen elsewhere in the corpus. By contrast, DMA is very much on Phys. VIII's path (once one understands Phys VIII in the way prologue B of DMA1 suggests) namely on the principle of movement as unmoved principle. No obvious internal development seems to unify the treatise. The paper also includes a main thesis concerning the traditional DMA's title as a treatise 'On animals' motion'. Different arguments are thus alleged so to show that such a title is neither entirely appropriate to the content, nor fitting with Aristotle's program as settled in DMA 1 (698a4-7). Moreover, a general inquiry about Aristotle's 'titles' has been prompted by some perplexities raised by the alleged 'title' of DMA: this has been developed in two further articles about the historical genesis of the corpus; as a result, it can be argued that Aristotle did not identify his writings with fixed titles â however fluent he may have been in programmatic statements and content's or method' indication: in a sense, therefore, if this holds to be true, no Aristotelian title is really appropriate, all of them being forged by later scholarship (see S. F., âExordes, raccords, 'titres' chez Aristoteâ, in: Transmettre les Savoirs, ed. by F. Le Blay, Presses Universitaires de Rennes 2009, pp. 295-308; id., âEsordi e trattati in Aristoteleâ, in Linguaggio, mente e mondo, ed. M. Carrara â G. De Anna â S. Magrin, Padova, 2003, p. 19-38). On this basis, the paper argues that one has to take seriously into account the indication of content he gives for his treatise in the introduction: though being classified as a zoological work, DMA is a treatise about the 'common' principle and cause of every kind of movement (698a4-7), where cosmological remarks do not only function as external examples; if it were a piece of zoology, one had to say that for Aristotle's mature thought (DMA is the richest treatise of the corpus when quotations of other treatises are concerned), the whole world's behaviour fall's into zoology, being thought of as a living being, a zôion indeed, as Aristotle says in DC II.2. However, A. never says so in the DMA: one is thus left e silentio with the idea that cosmology and zoology do not need to be reduced one to the other but are kept and analysed in parallel, sharing one fundamental chain at the origin of any movement, starting from intelligibility and/or lack of movement, ensoulement, desire.
Notes: S. F., âExordes, raccords, 'titres' chez Aristoteâ, in: Transmettre les Savoirs, ed. by F. Le Blay, Presses Universitaires de Rennes 2009, pp. 295-308; id., âEsordi e trattati in Aristoteleâ, in Linguaggio, mente e mondo, ed. M. Carrara â G. De Anna â S. Magrin, Padova, 2003, p. 19-38.
1999
1994

Conference papers

2009
Silvia Fazzo (2009)  "Exordes, raccords, 'titres' chez Aristote”   In: Transmettre les savoirs dans les mondes hellénistique et romain. Edited by:Frédéric Le Blay. 295-308 Presses universitaires de Rennes  
Abstract: Aristote a-t-il souhaité singulariser et caractériser ses différents traités en les distinguant au moyen de titres ? A-t-il souhaité instaurer un système de référencement stable, univoque et distinct entre ses différents écrits ? et sinon, de quelle autre manière a-t-il conçu la possibilité de mettre en relation les différents sujets de recherche quâil devait exposer ? Quelles sont les parties de ses traités pouvant exprimer cette relation ? Existe-t-il une typologie récurrente au sein de ses exordes introductifs ? Existe-t-il une motivation commune dans son système de raccords ? Menée selon des méthodes très simples (les éditions de référence, et principalement lâédition BEKKER accompagnée de lâindice de BONITZ), la recherche dont je vais commenter les résultats a eu pour origine ma curiosité face aux listes antiques des titres des Åuvres dâAristote, qui, comme câest souvent le cas ailleurs aussi, divergent tantôt entre elles tantôt du point de vue du corpus et des titres que nous connaissons. De ce fait, il serait naturel de se demander sâil existe un système de titres authentiquement aristotélicien. Somme toute, si nous nous en tenons à une définition stricte du titre (univoque et stable), il nây a pas de preuve de lâinstitution par Aristote dâun système de titres. Dâoù à plus forte raison lâintérêt des exordes aristotéliciens, qui constituent le lieu privilégié dâune introduction aux traités et aux champs disciplinaires et qui, comme nous le verrons, donnent des indications utiles, bien quâindirectes et négatives, sur la question des titres.
Notes:
2008
2002
1997

Other

1995
 
Powered by PublicationsList.org.