Skoči na glavni sadržaj

Izvorni znanstveni članak

The polemic between Petrić and Angelucci in the light of Philoponus' "Commentary on Metaphysics"

Mihaela Girardi-Karšulin ; Institut za filozofiju, Zagreb, Hrvatska

Puni tekst: hrvatski pdf 785 Kb

str. 433-452

preuzimanja: 254



In his Discussiones peripateticae (1581) Petrić only once cites a fragment from Philoponus’ Commentary on Metaphysics which he translated and published in 1583. The fragment in question is to be found in the third volume of Discussiones peripateticae and its content reveals that the Pythagoreans symbolically (symbolice) spoke of numbers as the principles of things. Apart from here Petrić cites Philoponus in other places, but these texts were already known and were not published solely by Petrić.
Yet in Apologia contra calumnias Theodori Angelutii Petrić uses a very short quotation from Philoponus’ Commentary on Metaphysics – the first sentence in Latin without the Greek original. In Apologia, namely, there is no Greek text. This sentence reads: »That treatise is termed Metaphysics, not in accordance with the state of things but according to the order of reading.« (Metaphysica inscripta est tractatio haec, non secundum habitum rei, sed secundum ordinem lectionis.) This sentence is related to yet another two texts which deal with the term ‘metaphysics’: to Averroes’ thesis from the treatise Epitome metaphysices (Et verisimile videtur, quod haec scientia nominetur metaphysica propter ordinem eius in doctrina. Est tamen prior in esse, et ideo appellatur prima philosophia.), and to the closing sentences of the Introduction to the Commentary on Metaphysics by Thomas Aquinas (Dicitur enim scientia divina sive theologia, in quantum praedictas substantias (divinas) considerat. Metaphyica, inquantum considerat ens et ea quae consequuntur ipsum. Haec enim transphysica inveniuntur in via resolutionis, sicut magis communia post minus communia. Dicitur autem prima philosophia inquantum primas rerum causas considerat.). None of the mentioned texts had been previously published in Petrić’s Discussiones peripateticae. Their quotation in Petrić’s Apologia contra calumnias Theodori Angelutii was triggered by Angelucci’s criticism of Petrić’s interpretation of the title and subject of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Contrary to Petrić’s thesis that Andronicus of Rhodes coined the term ‘metaphysics’ and that the so-called Metaphysical books do not deal with a single science, but as far as the subject is concerned are a display of confusion and disorder, Angelucci argues that the title Metaphysics is Aristotle’s or at least Theophrastus’ and that Metaphysics should not be understood as the science but as wisdom, and that it certainly has its unique subject.
As generally known, Angelucci responded to Petrić’s Apologia. In his response Angelucci employs the same, earlier mentioned quotations that Petrić uses (Philoponus, Averroes, Thomas Aquinas) on Metaphysics, but in defence of his own theses on Metaphysics which are in collision with those of Petrić.
In this paper I aim to examine Petrić’s and Angelucci’s assumptions on the basis of which, by leaning on the same quotations, it is possible to defend contradictory theses.

Ključne riječi

Frane Petrić, Teodoro Angelucci, Philoponus, metaphysics, Averroes, Thomas Aquinas

Hrčak ID:



Podaci na drugim jezicima: hrvatski

Posjeta: 609 *