Potestas Essendi

A Virtual Space for Thoughts on the Middle Ages, by Nicola Polloni

Idee, testi e autori

Idee, testi e autori arabi ed ebraici e la loro ricezione latina

Pavia, 3-4 dicembre 2014

Organiser: Dr Nicola Polloni

Screen Shot 2016-01-15 at 10.18.08


Programma

3 dicembre 2014

Sessione Mattutina

9.00: Apertura del Convegno e Saluti.

9.30-10.30: Marco Di Branco (Deutsches Historisches Institut, Roma), Greco-arabo-latino: aspetti storici di un itinerario culturale

10.30-10.45: Coffee break.

10.45-11.45: Charles Burnett (The Warburg Institute, University of London), The Gundissalinus Circle

11.45-12.45: Nicola Polloni (Università di Pavia – UAB), Possibilità materiali e necessità formali: letture gundissaliniane di Ibn Sina, Ibn Gabirol e Ibn Daud

13.00: Pranzo – Osteria Le Carceri, via Fratelli Marozzi 7.

Sessione Pomeridiana

15.00-16.00: Mauro Zonta (Università La Sapienza, Roma), Le diverse interpretazioni della ‘Metafisica’ da parte di Averroè e la loro differente ricezione storico-filosofica nelle tradizioni ebraica e latina

16.00-17.00: Dragos Calma (École pratique des hautes études, Paris), Averroès dans quelques commentaires au Liber de causis

17.00-17.15: Coffee break.

17.15-18.00: Therese Scarpelli Cory (University of Notre Dame), Reditio completa, reditio incompleta: The Evolution of Proposition 15 of the Liber de causis in Thomas Aquinas

18.00-19.00: Sarah Pessin (University of Denver), From Voluntas to al-Irada: Recovering Ibn Gabirol’s Divine Emanation

20.00: Cena – Pizzeria Gourmet Verde Salvia, via San Michele 4.

4 dicembre 2014

Sessione Mattutina

9.00-10.00: Luca Bianchi (Università del Piemonte Orientale), Boezio di Dacia e Averroè

10.00-11.00: Chiara Crisciani (Università di Pavia), Uso del Secretum secretorum in Occidente: tre casi

11.00-11.15: Coffee break.

11.15-12.15: Massimo Campanini (Università di Trento), Filosofia e Corano: un percorso tra ontologia e fenomenologia

12.15-13.15: Aum Shishmanian (Université Sorbonne, Paris IV), Bagdad, Paris, Lemberg, Etchmiadzin (Arménie): la trajectoire improbable du Livre des causes

13.15-13.30: Chiusura del Convegno.


10624610_10205596726264109_7842092174522594022_n


Abstract degli interventi

Luca Bianchi (Università del Piemonte Orientale), Boezio di Dacia e Averroè.

Nel 1899, quando la conoscenza delle sue opere era appena agli inizi, Pierre Mandonnet presentò Boezio di Dacia come un ‘averroista’, e quest’etichetta gli è rimasta attaccata per lungo tempo. Tuttavia ormai sappiamo che nei più celebri testi di questo rilevante maestro delle Arti (i trattati De summo bono, De aeternitate mundi e De somnis) l’influenza di Averroè è quasi nulla, e che non vi è nulla di ‘averroista’ nella sua concezione dell’autonomia della filosofia, né nel suo modo di intendere la ‘felicità mentale’. Nessuno però si è posto una semplicissima domanda: qual è la presenza di Averroè nell’insieme dell’opera di Boezio di Dacia? Un’analisi, quantitativa e qualitativa, di tutte le sue citazioni esplicite di Averroè offre una prima risposta, parziale ma molto significativa.


Charles Burnett (The Warburg Institute, University of London), The Gundissalinus Circle.

Correspondences have been observed between, on the one hand, several anonymous philosophical and scientific works which appear to have originated in Toledo in the third quarter of the twelfth century, and, on the other, the works securely attributed to Dominicus Gundissalinus. Such works are the Liber Mahameleth (on business arithmetic), Liber Alchorismi de practice arismetice (on Indian arithmetic), De differentiis tabular (an astronomical tables), and a version of Euclid’s Elements. Such works may be described as belonging to ‘Gundissalinus’s circle’. But what may the nature of this circle have been? What were the inspirations and the aims of Gundissalinus and those who were working with him? Who was sponsoring this work? How many people were involved?


Dragos Calma (École pratique des hautes études, Paris), Averroès dans quelques commentaires au Liber de causis.

Abstract – Siger de Brabant cite favorablement dans son commentaire au Liber de causis un passage du Commentaire à la Métaphysique, livre IX, d’Averroès, où celui-ci critique les ash’arites; il avait critiqué Al-Ghazali pour la même doctrine sur l’intervention immédiate dans le Tahafut al-tahafut. Siger fait usage de ce passage d’Averroès pour combattre l’interprétation que Thomas d’Aquin fait de la première proposition du Liber de causis selon laquelle la cause première influe directement sur les effets de la cause secondaire. Cette interprétation de la première proposition et la polémique de Siger contre Thomas sont reprises par plusieurs commentateurs du Liber de causis: on assiste ainsi à la constitution d’une tradition exégétique dans le monde latin qui ignore cependant les détails des polémiques originelles contre les ash’arites.


Massimo Campanini (Università di Trento), Filosofia e Corano: un percorso tra ontologia e fenomenologia.

In my first book “La Surah della Caverna” (1986) I argued the possibility of a phenomenological reading of the Qur’an from the point of view of Husserl’s philosophy. Now I believe that it is possible to offer a fresh philosophical reading of the Qur’an from a phenomenological-hermeneutical perspective that, always starting from Husserl, involves also Heidegger and Gadamer’s methodology. Through this key of interpretation, the essay analyses the Qur’anic idea of God as telos and intention. The central verse is Q. 28:88 which is commented, along with a number of other Qur’anic ayas, through al-Ghazali’s glasses. Comparisons with Avicenna and Aquinas allow to better outline al-Ghazali’s ideas that seem to interpret adequately the Qur’anic outlook.


Therese Cory (University of Notre Dame), Reditio completa, reditio incompleta: The Evolution of Proposition 15 of the Liber de causis in Thomas Aquinas

The entrenched view of Thomas Aquinas as a parroter of Aristotelian doctrines has been increasingly challenged over the last few decades.  Scholars now recognize strong Neoplatonic influences in his metaphysics—e.g., in his doctrines of creation, causality, and participation—from sources such as Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, Avicenna, and the Arabic Liber de causis.  Yet little attention has been paid to Neoplatonic aspects of Aquinas’s theory of human knowing, perhaps on the assumption that such a well-known defender of hylomorphism could never have drawn source material from a tradition tainted by dualism.  In order to take a step toward filling this lacuna, I propose to examine the influence of Arabic Neoplatonism on Aquinas’s theory of knowing, by way of the Liber de causis (LDC).   More specifically, this paper studies Aquinas’s interpretation and appropriation of prop. 15 of the LDC: “Every knower knows his essence and therefore returns to his essence with a complete return (reditio completa).”  LDC 15 provides an especially interesting case study for examining Aquinas’s approach to the Liber’s Neoplatonic cognition theory, because the theory of self-knowledge articulated in prop. 15 seems so alien to Aquinas’s own theory of human self-knowledge.  Indeed, Aquinas is generally thought to have handled this text only with a detached historicism, and many doubt that he thinks the doctrine of LDC 15 even applies to the human knower. In contrast, through a detailed study of Aquinas’s commentary on LDC 15 and his use of its doctrine elsewhere, I maintain the following three theses.  (1) Aquinas originally reads LDC 15 as applicable to all knowers, but later, influenced by Proclus, he takes this proposition to be about the human soul, although still articulating principles applying universally to all knowers.  (2) He is able to appropriate the doctrine of LDC 15 as his own, because he interprets it, arguably correctly, as establishing principles about independence from matter as an ontological condition for self-knowledge—principles that he can readily exploit in his own theory of self-knowledge.  Nevertheless, he is careful to distance himself from an implied claim about how self-knowledge occurs, which appears in one variant of the text.  (3) Most importantly, he not only uses, but actively develops, the doctrine of LDC 15, constructing from its principles his own original notion of an “incomplete return” (reditio incompleta) in the senses, which he uses to account for sensory consciousness.


Chiara Crisciani (Università di Pavia), Uso del Secretum secretorum in Occidente: tre casi.


Marco Di Branco (Deutsches Historisches Institut, Roma), Greco-arabo-latino: aspetti storici di un itinerario culturale

Il mio intervento sarà diviso in tre sezioni distinte, dedicate alle tematiche connesse ai processi di traduzione dal greco all’arabo, dal latino all’arabo e dall’arabo al greco in epoca medievale. Il mio punto di vista è quello dello storico, e dunque lascerò da parte i problemi più specificamente filosofici e letterari, che saranno certo affrontati ampiamente nel corso del convegno, per concentrarmi su alcune questioni storico-politiche, sociali e, in senso lato, culturali. I punti su cui vorrei attirare l’attenzione riguardano, per ciò che concerne le traduzioni dal greco e dal latino all’arabo, l’istituzione del bayt al-ḥikma e la vicenda della redazione del cosiddetto Kitāb Hurūshyūsh, la versione araba delle Historiae adversus paganos di Paolo Orosio; per quanto invece attiene alle traduzioni dall’arabo al greco, la questione dei versetti coranici tradotti in greco da Giovanni Damasceno nella Damasco dell’epoca umayyade.


Sarah Pessin (University of Denver), From Voluntas to al-Irada: Recovering Ibn Gabirol’s Divine Emanation.


Nicola Polloni (Università di Pavia – UAB), Possibilità materiali e necessità formali: letture gundissaliniane di Ibn Sina, Ibn Gabirol e Ibn Daud.

Nella sua riflessione metafisica, Gundissalinus mostra una progressiva presa di coscienza di alcune problematiche principali tanto in relazione alla progressione cosmogonica quanto rispetto all’analisi della composizione ontologica degli enti. In questo senso è possibile tracciare le tappe di questo percorso attraverso la problematizzazione della principale fonte dell’ontologia di Gundissalinus, ossia il Fons vitae di Ibn Gabirol, in relazione alla ricezione della metafisica avicenniana.  In questo intervento analizzo come Gundissalinus “legge” Ibn Gabirol a partire dal De unitate et uno, prima opera in cui troviamo una decisa adesione tanto alla cosmologia quanto all’ontologia gabiroliane, per poi esaminare come tale adesione venga progressivamente problematizzata dapprima nel De anima e, in seguito, nel De processione mundi, dove l’analisi gundissaliniana è segnata dalla necessità di reinterpretare la riflessione di Ibn Gabirol alla luce della Metaphysica e della Physica di Ibn Sina: una nuova ermeneutica in cui l’influsso di Abraham Ibn Daud su Gundissalinus non è affatto indifferente. 


Aum Shishmanian (Université Sorbonne, Paris IV), Bagdad, Paris, Lemberg, Etchmiadzin (Arménie): la trajectoire improbable du Livre des causes.


Mauro Zonta (Università La Sapienza, Roma), Le diverse interpretazioni della ‘Metafisica’ da parte di Averroè e la loro differente ricezione storico-filosofica nelle tradizioni ebraica e latina.

Just like in the case of other Aristotelian works (Posterior Analytics, Physics, De caelo, De anima), Averroes composed three different interpretations of Aristotle’s Metaphysics: an Epitome, which was probably written in 1159 and then revised in some points, where the main object of study was the contents of book Delta of Aristotle’s work; a Middle Commentary, completed in 1174, which covered the almost complete text of the Metaphysics (except book Alpha meizon) but only paraphrased the contents of it, apart from some occasional observations or “variant-interpretations” of the same passages; a Long Commentary, which was completed around 1190 but was possibly begun even earlier than the Middle Commentary (in the case of book Lambda in particular), where a detailed examinations and interpretations of the literal text (here reproduced in some Medieval Greek-to-Arabic versions) is given. The different historical reception of these three works is really important for the history of philosophy in the Late Middle Ages, both in the Latin world and in the Jewish one. As a matter of fact, the Epitome, whose Arabic is still extant and was copied in the Middle East from 1200 onwards, was rendered into Hebrew by Moses Ibn Tibbon in 1258 and had a widespread diffusion not only in the Arab-Islamic and Jewish milieu, but also in the Latin one during the Renaissance: it was rendered from Hebrew into Latin by Jacob Mantino and printed in the second half of the 16th century. The Long Commentary had a very limited diffusion in the Arab-Islamic milieu: only one copy of the original Arabic text is still found. However, this text was translated into Latin by Michael Scot in the first half of the 13th century (and then printed in the Renaissance period); moreover, it was two times rendered into Hebrew, in Provence, in the first half of the 14th century. On the contrary, the Middle Commentary was apparently destroyed in its original Arabic text, and it was never rendered into Latin. But it had a really widespread diffusion in the Jewish world in Western Europe, where, in the 14th-16th centuries, it was rendered into Hebrew by two different translators and was copied many times in Spain and Italy (almost thirty copies of these two Hebrew versions are still extant). Why these works had a so different success in Hebrew and Latin in the same historical period and in the same geographical contexts? We will try to find a reply to this difficult question.