A comprehensive attempt to list and identify the nearly 100 medieval Latin works falsely attributed to Aristotle. It includes all Latin writings which were at one time ascribed to Aristotle and which do not obviously derive from an extant or lost Greek original attributed to Aristotle.

Among his many accomplishments, Grosseteste is known for translating Greek philosophical, theological, and glossarial treatises into Latin, making them available for Latin readers. Three of these translations are nowadays studied for the Aristoteles Latinus project, which aims at making critical editions of all Greek-Latin medieval translations of Aristotle’s oeuvre. The goal of this contribution is to give an overview of the history of Robert Grosseteste’s translations of Aristotelian texts within the context of Aristoteles Latinus. The first (...) part is devoted to previous research on these translations and to a status quaestionis of current scholarship. The second part turns its focus to Grosseteste’s characteristic translation method. It offers new insights into the usual translation of certain smaller Greek words (such as particles and conjunctions) into Latin by Grosseteste, and what can set this translator apart from other medieval translators. (shrink)

The article studies a privately owned fragmentary manuscript of Moerbeke’s version of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. The treatise was transmitted through a very intricate text tradition. It is shown that two of the remaining three parts of the manuscript belong to the so-called “Italian” or independent tradition, for which only six other manuscripts are extant. Although Vuillemin-Diem, the editor of the text in the Aristoteles Latinus series, did not use this manuscript, its text corroborates several of her hypotheses. Moreover, the (...) manuscript considerably adds to our knowledge of Moerbeke’s lost autograph. It also contains some interesting similarities with Albert the Great’s commentary on the same text. (shrink)

Durch rastlose Forschungsarbeit der letzten Jahrzehnte ist der gewaltige Einfluß, den das Eindringen der aristotelischen Philosophie in Verbindung mit der arabischen Philosophie und Naturwissenschaft auf die Entwicklung des späteren mittelalterlichen Geisteslebens ausgeübt hat, immer mehr und mehr ins Licht gestellt worden. Mühsame Einzelforschung - denn nur sie, nicht geistvolle Linienziehung gibt auf diesem schwierigen Gebiete sichere Führung - hat die Entwicklungsphasen der mittelalterlichen Aristotelesrezeption aufgehellt. Wenn nunmehr die Union académique internationale auf Vorschlag der polnischen Akademie der Wissenschaften das große Werk (...) eines Aristoteles latinus, einer kritischen Edition der mittelalterlichen lateinischen Aristotelesübersetzungen, in Angriff genommen hat und unter der Leitung von G. Lacombe hierfür die Vorbereitungs- und Inventarisierarbeit im weitesten Umfang geleistet worden ist, so geht für die mittelalterliche geisteswissenschaftliche Forschung ein Wunsch in Erfüllung, den Clemens Baeumker und auch ich in unseren Arbeiten so lebhaft zum Ausdruck gebracht haben. Ich hatte, als ich im Jahre 1916, durch die Kriegsverhältnisse eingeengt, mein Buch »Forschungen über die lateinischen Aristotelesübersetzungen des 13. Jahrhunderts« schrieb, nicht daran gedacht, daß in so verhältnismäßig kurzer Zeit der Plan einer Ausgabe der mittelalterlichen lateinischen Aristotelesübertragungen, der auch eine Gesamtausgabe der Werke des Averroes in sich begreifen soll, gefaßt und in so energischer, zielbewußter Weise der Verwirklichung entgegengeführt würde. [Aus der Einleitung]. (shrink)

In this contribution, I analyze a text by Oresme which gives a rather original explanation of the process of throwing a javelin and, more generally, of the actions of people who seem to have a kind of natural ability to succeed in their actions (De Configurationibus II, 37). In highlighting some sources that appear to have been present on the author’s mind although they were hitherto neglected in Oresmian studies, I would like to show that his presentation of this specific (...) kind of motion is deeply rooted in the scholastic theological tradition and that this tradition makes this chapter seem much less strange than it might seem at first glance. (shrink)

Aunque Nicolás de Cusa, no es un anti-aristotélico estricto, el propósito de este artículo es mostrar en qué sentido la reflexión acerca del principio capital de la filosofía de Nicolás de Cusa el principio de la coincidencia de los opuestos, supone una lectura crítica de Aristóteles. En diálogo con la literatura secundaria propongo que el contacto con el llamado Aristoteles latinus ofrece al Cusano la oportunidad para plantear una superación de las condiciones de la contradicción y encontrar un (...) marco especulativo adecuado para una nueva concepción del Primer Principio. While Nicholas of Cusa is not a strict anti-aristotelian, the purpose of this article is to show the sense in which in the first principle of cusanian philosophy, the principle of the coincidence of opposites, contains a critical reading of Aristotle. Discussing some contemporary positions, it is proposed here that the contact with the so-called Aristoteles latinus gives Nicholas of Cusa the opportunity to attempt a critical examination of the conditions of contradiction and to open a speculative framework for a new conception of the First Principle. (shrink)

The author presents a critical edition of the Latin treatise De mineralibus, which was generally attributed to Aristotle in the Middle Ages, but is in fact an abridgement of two chapters from Avicenna’s Kitāb al-Šifā’ compiled and translated from Arabic by Alfred of Sareshill, who put them at the end of the Liber metheororum, the first Latin version of Aristotle’s Meteorology. De mineralibus is transmitted by more than a hundred manuscripts. The edition is based on the complete collation of ten (...) witnesses of the text, selected according the stemma codicum proposed in vol. X.1 of Aristoteles Latinus, in which part IV of the Liber metheororum has been published. In addition to the editorial criteria, the author presents and discusses some peculiarities of Alfred’s Arabic-Latin translation. The edition is accompanied by Latin-Arabic and Arabic-Latin glossaries. (shrink)