Byzantine Studies

134 delle quali è Rhet. Her. 2. 22. 34: Utinam ne in nemore Pelio securibus 208 caesa accidisset abiegna ad terram trabes, neve inde navis inchoandi exordium 210 cepisset, quae nunc nominatur nomine Argo, quia Argivi in ea delecti viri 5 vecti petebant pellem inauratam arietis Colchis, imperio regis Peliae, per dolum. Nam numquam era errans mea domo efferret pedem 215 Medea animo aegro amore saevo saucia 4 .

Tra gli aspetti di maggiore interesse legati ai commenti ad Aristotele di Eustrazio di Nicea (ca. 1050-ca. 1120) vi è la risoluta affermazione della dissensio tra Platone e Aristotele¹. La cosa non è affatto irrilevante per due motivi, se si pensa 1) che la concordanza tra Platone e Aristotele, testimoniata finanche da Fozio in rapporto ad Ammonio², si trova affermata decisamente in commentatori tardo-antichi quali Simplicio e Filopono³; 2) quello del concordismo tra Platone e Aristotele è stato considerato dalla storiografia, in contributi dedicati allo stesso Eustrazio, come un tratto peculiare del pensiero bizantino⁴. In questo senso, stando a questa prospettiva storiografica, sembrerebbe che una vera e propria rottura di questo topos si sia verificata soltanto nel XV secolo bizantino, per poi proseguire fuori Bisanzio grazie alle discussioni suscitate dai dotti greci emigrati in Italia⁵.

This is a study in Italian of Barlaam's lost works as transmitted in Palamas'Triads. It demonstrates that Barlaam's standpoints have nothing to do with Latin theology, as commonly believed. By contrast, this paper proves that some of Barlaam's most important doctrines were taken from Syrianus' commentary on the Metaphysics and Proclus' commentary on the Alcibiades I.

The present paper investigates John Italos' Quaestio 92 and reaches two main conclusions: 1) Alike modern scholars, Italos was well aware of Plotinus's and Proclus' conflicting views on the status of matter; 2) Taking the cue from the disagreement among philosophers of all time on the status of matter, Italos defends that with respect to this and other sensitive issues one has to rely on the Church Fathers rather than the philosophers. In this respect this paper provides a different view than that on which most scholars agree after the text Italos' condemnation in the Synodikon of the Orthodox Church. Based on a philological study on this Italos text, the present paper concludes that Italos was well aware of the limits of philosophical survey with respect to revealed theological truths.

This piece includes the entries 'John Italos', 'Eustratios of Nicaea', 'Nicholas of Methone' for Stephen Gersh's forthcoming 'Interpreting Proclus from Antiquity to the Renaissance'. This is only a draft; please refer to the original published version (http://www.cambridge.org/ar/academic/subjects/classical-studies/ancient-philosophy/interpreting-proclus-antiquity-renaissance)