Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T08:00:40.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Greek Aristotelianism in the seventeenth century: uncovering Cesare Cremonini in the works of Theophilos Korydalleus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2019

Nikos Agiotis
Nikos Agiotis*
Affiliation:
Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanitiesagiotis@bbaw.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This case-study concerns Greek Aristotelianism in the seventeenth century. More specifically, my article deals with the impact of neo-Aristotelianism upon the formation of the philosophical curriculum of the Greek-speaking world during that period. I examine aspects of the – rather understudied – influence exerted by Cesare Cremonini on Theophilos Korydalleus. The terms ‘authentic interpreters’/‘authentic interpretation’ and ‘νεώτεροι’ in Theophilos’ works of natural philosophy not only highlight the influence of Cremonini, but also hint at critical views held by the former, as well as terminology which is either absent or has a different meaning in treatises of the latter.

Keywords

neo-AristotelianismCesare Cremoninipost-Byzantine philosophyseventeenth-century Greek scholarsTheophilos Korydalleus

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , April 2019 , pp. 105 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek, University of Birmingham, 2019 

Introduction

With a few notable exceptions,Footnote 1 Greek Aristotelianism of the almost three centuries following the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople remains a rather neglected topic of Aristotelian studies. Inaccessible manuscripts, the absence of relevant research tools, unfamiliarity with contemporary sources in Latin and the lack of critical editions are only a few of the reasons for various shortcomings or biases regarding the assessment of the philosophical discussion conducted by Greek scholars after 1453 and until the final rejection of Aristotelian science in the eighteenth century.

In the following case-study, we examine the philosophical work of Theophilos Korydalleus, perhaps the most prominent Greek scholar of the seventeenth century.Footnote 2 Theophilos was born in 1574 in Athens with the surname Skordalos, which he later changed to Korydalleus. He studied at the Pontificio Collegio Greco (1604–8) and then at the University of Padua (1609–13), where he attended the lectures of Cesare Cremonini (1550–1631).Footnote 3 After the end of his studies, Theophilos worked in various Greek schools as a teacher before being appointed head of the Patriarchal School in Constantinople in 1622. Patriarch Cyril Loukaris (1572–1638) invited him to serve in this position, thus giving Theophilos the opportunity to reform the curriculum of the school in accordance with the syllabus of the University of Padua. After the violent death of his benefactor, the scholar was appointed Metropolitan of Naupaktos and Arta, with the name Theodosios (1640–2); he died in the city of his birth in 1646. Korydalleus’ influence was immense: manuscript copies of his works are to be found today in their hundreds in all significant libraries of lands formerly belonging to the Ottoman Empire; for example, the commentary on Aristotle's Physics is transmitted either in part, or in total, or in different versions by at least 162 manuscripts dating from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries.Footnote 4 Theophilos defined the philosophical content of the curriculum of his era and thus became the benchmark for the study of the Aristotelian corpus among Greek-speaking intellectual circles of the next one and a half centuries. The importance of Theophilos’ apprenticeship to Cesare Cremonini has become a locus communis among older and contemporary scholars, which occasionally results in hidden contempt or exaggerated praise: Korydalleus is then presented either as ‘nothing more than a Cremoninus Graecus’,Footnote 5 or ‘the chief philosopher of Greek neo-Aristotelianism’.Footnote 6 However, there is hardly any studyFootnote 7 regarding the student's dependence on the master. In this paper, we examine the reception of Cremonini's work in Theophilos’ treatises concerning two key-concepts of what later came to be known as ‘κορυδαλλίζειν’:Footnote 8 (a) the authentic interpretation of the Aristotelian corpus and (b) the conflict with the ‘νεώτεροι’.

Authentic interpretation

Nikolaos Koursoulas (1602–52), a scholar belonging to the first generation of Aristotelians after Korydalleus, seems to be rather sceptical regarding the philosophical efficacy of the latter. Nikolaos proclaims, in his commentary on the Physics of Aristotle:

A less passionate assessment may be found in the Ἐπιτετμημένη ἐπαρίθμησις τῶν κατὰ τὸν παρελθόντα αἰῶνα λογίων Γραικῶν καὶ περί τινων ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι ἀνθούντων, written by Dimitrios Prokopiou in either 1720, or 1721, and then published for the first time in 1722 by J. A. Fabricius in his Bibliotheca Graeca:

What transpired in the century separating Koursoulas from Prokopiou, and thus caused the two opposite opinions on Korydalleus, has been studied elsewhere;Footnote 11 there is an interesting element on which both scholars agree: the decisive influence of Cesare Cremonini upon Theophilos.

In the passage from Theophilos quoted above, Koursoulas emphasizes the appropriation of the work of Alexander of Aphrodisias as being the reason for this close relation. Indeed, in the preface of his De formis quattuor corporum simplicium quae vocantur elementa disputatio, Cremonini divides the first section of this treatise into three chapters according to a tripartite classification of philosophical schools regarding the matter in question; he refers to the following three groups or cases of commentators: (a) the Greeks, (b) the ‘biting’ (‘mordicus’) Latins and (c) Averroes. One might be right in considering that the ‘biting’ Latins is a wordplay of Cesare standing for ‘Hounds of the Lord’ or ‘domini canes’, in other words the Dominicans who wished to reconcile Christian theology with Aristotelian philosophy, and for that reason received the harshest criticism in his work. Cremonini expresses his doubts regarding Averroes and maintains that in some cases the views of the Greeks are not evidently clear; however, he begins his examination of the Greek school with the ‘prince’ of the latter, Alexander of Aphrodisias, whose interpretation should – according to Cremonini – always be trusted.Footnote 12

A substantially expanded version of the same predilections is to be found in Theophilos’ commentary on Aristotle's De generatione et corruptione, in a chapter under the title ‘Ἐπεισόδιος θεωρία περὶ τῶν ἐν Φιλοσοφίᾳ Αἱρέσεων, καὶ τῆς παρ’ ἀρχαίοις ποικιλίας τῶν δογμάτων’:Footnote 13

… there have been many Aristotelian scholars, of whom the most prominent is the Aphrodisian Alexander, who wrote commentaries after both correcting the text and comparing the content of many books. And he put so much effort into his work that no one who does not understand Aristotle's doctrines according to Alexander is really a Peripatetic or is considered as such. For the rest of the interpreters, having blurred the vision of their own mind, did not authentically discern the Philosopher's (= Aristotle's) notions; e.g. Porphyry, Ammonius, Philoponus, Simplicius, Themistius, regarding whom I do not know whether we should say that they interpret the works of Aristotle Platonically or that they comment on the works of Plato Aristotelically. Or, perhaps, since they belong to Platonism and are not able to neglect Aristotelianism – since the latter is by far superior to the former –, they preferred to fit them together, because they thought that the pupil Aristotle does not altogether disagree with the master Plato; yet, they were refuted by later readers of the Aphrodisian, because they conflated incompatible things. And there were many more Aristotelian scholars, but concerning the Arabs Averroes takes the first place. In the case of the Latins, however, all scholars are called Peripatetics, even though they philosophize unlike the Peripatetics; but by pouring together skills of different origin and of another kind, and scrambling a mixture of philosophy and theology, they were deprived of both true philosophy and right judgement; in the latter case, they drift away from the righteous mind, in order that they do not say things not agreeing with the … teachings of the Philosopher; in the former case they wander away from Aristotle while being forced to agree with the Church Fathers.

The references to the three schools in the Greek text are presented in a similar way to, and follow the same order as, those in the relevant chapter of Cremonini's treatise: Alexander is the commentator par excellence; the rest of the Greeks are rather incoherent; Averroes is mentioned again in a somewhat neutral way, although to him belongs the ‘primacy’ among the Arabs, just as Alexander is the ‘prince’ of the Greek philosophers in Theophilos’ text.

It is worth noting that, in the above passage, Theophilos introduces the notion of the ‘authentic interpretation’ which is not mentioned in the text of Cremonini; this might be a hint to Cesare, although similar expressions are used elsewhere in the commentary with regard to Alexander.Footnote 14 Unlike other members of the Paduan School, Cremonini strongly emphasized that the Aristotelian text is the foundation of valid knowledge;Footnote 15 could the authority of the master – besides Alexander of Aphrodisias – necessitate the use of a term stressing the value of the authentic interpretation in the text of the student?

In a passage of his commentary on De caelo, Theophilos treats the subject of ‘νοεῖν’ (see the table below). The editor, Nikos Psimmenos, claims that ‘Korydalleus appears in these chapters as a philosopher who knows how to systematically revisit issues regarding νοεῖν raised by his patron Aristotle, and interpreted by ancient or more recent readers of the latter, rather than as a commentator or as a historian of philosophy’.Footnote 16 As can be shown in the pertinent quotations, however, Korydalleus’ text is an augmented version of the respective passage in Cremonini's Desputatio de coelo:

What is more important for our examination is that Theophilos clearly alludes to Cremonini when he writes ‘τοῖς γνησιωτέροις τῶν φιλοσοφούντων’ (see underlined text in the table above); this reference is missing from the Latin text.

Another example hinting towards a direct connection between Cesare Cremonini and the notion of ‘authentic interpretation’ derives again from Theophilos’ commentary on De generatione et corruptione, that is to say, the relation between philosophy and theology or the doctrine of the double truth (see the Greek text below). The person Korydalleus has in mind when referring to authentic disclosure becomes evident if we examine two texts by Cesare Cremonini: (a) his Responsio ad objectiones apologetica, which followed the accusations made against him by the Holy Inquisition shortly after the publication of the aforementioned commentary on De coelo in 1613 (see the first Latin passage below); and (b) the second edition of this commentary in 1616, containing a revision of the fourth part in the first edition (‘Apologia dictorum Aristotelis, de quinta Coeli substantia’; see the second Latin passage below). In the first of these texts we find – just as in the case of Theophilos – references to the interpretation of the Aristotelian corpus according to principles set out by Aristotle himself, the difference between Truth and Aristotelian philosophy, and the condemnation of those Aristotelian doctrines that are not consistent with the Truth. In the second text, we find a reference similar to the one connecting the authentic interpretation of the Aristotelian philosophy at the end of Theophilos’ text with the divine light.

The term ‘νεώτεροι’

The term ‘νεώτεροι’ is employed in a negative way by Korydalleus in most instances: their frenzy for novelties shows their lack of fondness for the ‘authentic interpretation’; they obfuscate the Aristotelian doctrines or even have a superficial understanding of them.Footnote 24 Contemporary scholars seem, however, to have conflicting views on the subject:

  1. 1. Otto Jochem believes that ‘νεώτεροι’ is a typical term signifying Christian scholars opposing the ancient Greek commentators, from the beginning of Scholasticism until the time of Korydalleus; terms such as ‘οἱ νῦν φιλοσοφοῦντες’ serve the same purpose.Footnote 25

  2. 2. Kleovoulos Tsourkas suggests that ‘οἱ νῦν φιλοσοφοῦντες’ and ‘οἱ νῦν φιλοσοφοῦντες ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ’ are supporters of neo-Aristotelian ideas contemporary with Theophilos, who also calls them ‘νεώτεροι’; they have no relation whatsoever to Scholasticism or theology.Footnote 26

  3. 3. Nikos Psimmenos assumes that Korydalleus employs the term ‘νεώτεροι’ when alluding to Aristotelian commentators who flourished a few centuries before the time of Theophilos, for instance Averroes.Footnote 27

  4. 4. Finally, Charalampos Chronis deems that the term is employed either as an allusion to all Aristotelian interpreters after the end of Late Antiquity, or as a negative characterization for all those who introduce new interpretations of Aristotle; the latter tradition starts perhaps with Averroes (1126–98). Chronis also points out that expressions such as ‘οἱ νεώτεροι τῶν Ἰταλῶν’ and ‘οἱ νῦν φιλοσοφοῦντες ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ’ imply Cremonini and the Neo-Aristotelians, with whom the ‘νεώτεροι’ should not be identified.Footnote 28

Could the treatises of Cremonini be of any help in deciphering the use of these somewhat vague terms by Korydalleus? The philosophical works of both scholars remain mostly unedited, but a preliminary examination shows that, in most cases, Theophilos’ critique against the ‘νεώτεροι’ takes into consideration a passage from Cremonini's work.

To the best of our knowledge, ‘οἱ νεώτεροι τῶν Ἰταλῶν’ and the similar expression ‘οἱ νῦν φιλοσοφοῦντες ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ’ are to be found exclusively in Theophilos’ commentary on the Physics, that is to say, in his analysis explaining the different opinions regarding the subject of this Aristotelian treatise.Footnote 29 The classification of the different opinions and their labels seems to have its starting point in Cremonini's Explanatio prooemii librorum Aristotelis De physico auditu. More specifically, there are ‘sententiae’ of the ‘latini prisci’, in other words, the Scholastics, which are accepted by ‘recenteriores multi’;Footnote 30 the latter group of opinions corresponds to the ‘δόξαι’ of the ‘νεώτεροι τῶν Ἰταλῶν’ and the ‘νῦν φιλοσοφοῦντες ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ’ in the text of Theophilos; in this respect, Chronis’ theory is correct (at least in part, because the term ‘νεώτεροι’ has – as we are going to show below – a wider meaning than the one he suggests.)

The more generic term ‘οἱ νῦν φιλοσοφοῦντες’ occurs at least twice in Theophilos’ commentary on De anima and three times in the commentary on the Physics. Concerning the former passages, we should trust Jochem when he says that Korydalleus refers there to Scholasticism.Footnote 31 In the second commentary on the Physics, however, Theophilos, in all probability, alludes to his tutor once again:

The brief reference to the different kinds of natural bodies is in fact a summary of the contents of the chapter ‘Partitio philosophiae naturalis et ordo partium’ in Cremonini's Explanatio;Footnote 33 in this respect, Tsourkas seems to be not far from truth.

Korydalleus, however, was not always willing to accept the views of his master; a pertinent example is found once again in the commentary on the Physics. According to Theophilos there are three groups of ‘νεώτεροι’, which assume the subject of natural science to be either a mobile being, or a mobile essence, or a body that comes into being and passes away.Footnote 34 These opinions are also mentioned in the Explanatio;Footnote 35 of particular interest is the second one, which is represented by Albert Magnus (ca 1200–80) and – according to Theophilos – is held in high esteem ‘παρὰ τοῖς νῦν φιλοσοφοῦσι’.Footnote 36 Theophilos mentions a fourth case, the opinion of those ‘who engaged in the study of nature more outspokenly’ (‘ὅσοι παῤῥησιαστικώτερον ᾕψαντο τῆς περὶ φύσεως θεωρίας’) and favoured the natural body as subject of natural science; furthermore, he offers documentation deriving from Aristotle's De coelo.Footnote 37 The latter opinion, along with the reference to the Aristotelian treatise, belongs, of course, to Cesare Cremonini.Footnote 38 Theophilos, however, deemed the subject of natural science to be ‘what has a nature in so far as it has one’ (‘τὸ φύσιν ἔχον ᾗ φύσιν ἔχει’) rather than the natural body; the reason is that the term ‘body’ can be attributed, because of homonymy, to things bearing no relation with the study of nature at all.Footnote 39

Nevertheless, the term ‘νεώτεροι’ concerns not only Aristotelians. In his commentary on De generatione et corruptione, Korydalleus proclaims the following:

Theophilos did not write – as far as we know – any commentary on that particular Aristotelian work; but why would he treat the opinion of the ‘νεώτεροι’ on the properties of the magnet there? Again, we have to seek an answer in the work of Cremonini. In his Expositio primi libri Meteorum Aristotelis Footnote 41, Cremonini unleashes harsh criticism against the astrologers, who think that celestial bodies may have an effect – apart from movement and light – on the sublunar world. The main points of his criticism can be grouped into the following four passages:Footnote 42

Such remarks are endorsed in a similar list, including various beliefs of astrologers, in the second part of Theophilos’ commentary on De generatione et corruptione, bearing the title ‘Συνοπτικὴ πραγματεία περὶ τοῦ ὅτι πρώτως ποιητικὸς ὁ αἰθὴρ τοῦ θνητοῦ σώματος’:

From the last two passages of Theophilos above one may infer: (a) that the term ‘νεώτεροι’ concerns not only Aristotelians; and (b) that Korydalleus’ ‘Brief treatise on Aether’ was actually the work he meant by referring to the commentary on Meteorologica. This means in turn that the latter part of the commentary on De generatione et corruptione may have been written after 1613 or 1616, as it contains allusions to the doctrine of ‘double truth’ also found in Cremonini's Responsio and in the second edition of his commentary on De coelo.

Conclusion

The research on Aristotelian philosophy of the first centuries after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 remains a desideratum. The various labels employed by scholars in the last forty years in order to define the Aristotelianism of that period (‘post-Byzantine Aristotelianism’,Footnote 44 ‘pre-Korydallic’ and ‘Korydallic period’,Footnote 45 ‘Modern Greek Aristotelianism’,Footnote 46 ‘Greek neo-Aristotelianism’Footnote 47) may imply different research priorities or even confusion; above all, however, these conventions highlight the imperative need for a systematic examination of the respective vast, understudied or largely unknown manuscript material. Digital sources have, of course, enhanced our capability to access considerably more information and text sources, but the ‘state of the art’ still leaves much to be desired.

Such a deficiency is plainly obvious in the case of Theophilos Korydalleus, who undoubtedly played a pivotal role in the study of the corpus aristotelicum in the seventeenth century. The influence of Cesare Cremonini upon the Greek scholar is stated by both older and contemporary research, but the general tendency in contemporary research is to study the commentaries of the student while completely or partially ignoring the works of the master. This, in turn, has resulted in arbitrary conclusions and exaggerations, suggesting either the depreciation or the overestimation of Theophilos’ philosophical acumen. The endorsement of the ‘authentic interpretation’, as well as the polemics against the various ‘νεώτεροι’ (and similar expressions or terms) in the works of Theophilos certainly shows the effect that Cesare's instruction had on him. The commentaries of Korydalleus, nonetheless, represent a vast labour and should not be considered as mere imitations of Cremonini's works; after all, as we have seen, Theophilos not only expands or summarizes passages from the texts of Cremonini, he also does not hesitate to express criticism against his master's doctrines. In this respect, the interrelation between the text corpora of both Cremonini and Korydalleus ought to be studied with greater attention.

Footnotes

An earlier version of this paper was presented at a workshop organized by the CRC 980 ‘Episteme in motion’ – Project C06 ‘Transfer and Overlapping. Configurations of Knowledge in the Era of the Greek Homines Novi in the Ottoman Empire (1641–1730)’ at Freie Universität Berlin. I am thankful to George A. Alexakis for proof-reading the English text. My thanks for their corrections and suggestions are also due to the editors of Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies and the anonymous referee.

References

1 N. Psimmenos, Ἡ ἑλληνικὴ φιλοσοφία ἀπὸ τὸ 1453 ὣς τὸ 1821: Ἀνθολογία κειμένων μὲ εἰσαγωγὴ καὶ σχόλια, I: Ἡ κυριαρχία τοῦ Ἀριστοτελισμοῦ: Προκορυδαλικὴ καὶ κορυδαλικὴ περίοδος [Φιλοσοφικὴ καὶ πολιτικὴ βιβλιοθήκη, 26] (Athens 1988); Karanasios, Ch., ‘Die Begegnung der Neugriechen mit Aristoteles im Rahmen der ideologischen Auseinandersetzungen im griechischen Raum zu Beginn des 17. Jh.’, in Berger, Fr. et al. (eds.), Symbolae Berolinenses für Dieter Harlfinger (Amsterdam 1993) 219–35Google Scholar; Benakis, L. G., Μεταβυζαντινὴ φιλοσοφία: 17ος – 19ος αἰώνας: Ἔρευνα στὶς πηγές (Athens 2001)Google Scholar; Petsios, K. Th., Ἡ Περὶ φύσεως συζήτηση στὴ νεοελληνικὴ σκέψη: Ὅψεις τῆς φιλοσοφικῆς διερεύνησης ἀπὸ τὸν 15ο ὣς τὸν 19ο αἰώνα, 2nd edn (Ioannina 2003) 37–229Google Scholar; Patiniotis, M., ‘Εκλεκτικές συγγένειες: Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης και Θεόφιλος Κορυδαλέας’, Δελτίο Αναγνωστικής Εταιρείας Κερκύρας 26 (2004) 27–78Google Scholar; Leontsini, E., ‘Η ελληνική φιλοσοφία κατά το 16ο και 17ο αι.: Χριστόφορος Κοντολέων, Ιωάννης Κωττούνιος και επίσκοπος Κυθήρων Μάξιμος Μαργούνιος’, in Leontsinis, G. N. (ed.), Επιστημονική έρευνα στα Κύθηρα (Athens 2008) 279–93Google Scholar.

2 For Theophilos Korydalleus see the monograph of Tsourkas, Cl., Les débuts de l'enseignement philosophique et de la libre pensée dans les Balkans: La vie et l'oeuvre de Théophile Corydalée (1550–1646), 2nd edn (Thessaloniki 1967)Google Scholar; see also, indicatively, Henderson, G. P., The Revival of Greek Thought, 1620–1830 (Albany 1970) 12–19Google Scholar; Podskalsky, G., Griechische Theologie in der Zeit der Türkenherrschaft 1453–1821. Die Orthodoxie im Spannungsfeld der nachreformatorischen Konfessionen des Westens (Munich 1988) 194–9Google Scholar; Kitromilides, P. M., ‘Το κοινό φιλοσοφικό παρελθόν των βαλκανικών λαών’, in Dragona-Monachou, M. (ed.), Η φιλοσοφία στα Βαλκάνια σήμερα. Philosophy in Balkan Countries Today (Athens 1994) 171–9Google Scholar; idem, Enlightenment and Revolution: The Making of Modern Greece (Cambridge, MA 2013) 27–30Google Scholar. For modern editions and reference works concerning the aristotelica of Korydalleus in particular, see Théophile Corydalée, Introduction à la logique [Théophile Corydalée, Oeuvres philophiques, 1], ed. A. Papadopoulos and C. Noica (Bucarest 1970); Théophile Corydalée, Commentaires à la Métaphysique [Théophile Corydalée, Oeuvres philophiques, 2], ed. C. Noica (Bucarest 1973); Tsiotras, V. I., ‘The manuscripts of Theophilos Korydalleus’ commentaries on Aristotle's Logic’, in Cesare Cremonini: Aspetti del pensiero e scritti (Atti del Convegno di Studio-Padova, 26–27 Febbraio 1999) (Padua 2000) 219–48Google Scholar; idem, ‘Τρεῖς ἀνέκδοτες ἐπιστολές τοῦ Θεοφίλου Κορυδαλλέως καὶ οἱ ἀριστοτελικὲς πηγές τους’, Ὁ Ἐρανιστής 24 (2003) 11–27Google Scholar; idem, ‘Ο “Εἰς κοιμηθέντας” λόγος του Θεοφίλου Κορυδαλλέως και η αριστοτελική περί ψυχής θεματική του’, Ὁ Ἐρανιστής 29 (2016) 5–45Google Scholar. For a comprehensive bibliography on the scholar see the entry ‘Theophilos Korydalleus’ in the database of the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina project: <https://cagb-db.bbaw.de/register/personen.xql?id=cagb:b3c76632-671c-43c4-a889-c857923ae1f9>.

3 For the work of Cremonini see Kuhn, H. C., Venetischer Aristotelismus im Ende der aristotelischen Welt: Aspekte der Welt und des Denkens des Cesare Cremonini (1560–1631) (Frankfurt on Main 1996)Google Scholar; Riondato, E. and Poppi, A. (eds.), Cesare Cremonini: Aspetti del pensiero e scritti, 2 vols (Padua 2000)Google Scholar.

4 I am currently preparing an article on this subject.

5 I. A. Dimitrakopoulos, ‘Βούλγαρης: Λογική: Ευγενίου Βουλγάρεως: Λογική («Κείμενα νεοελλήνων φιλοσόφων», 2). Προλεγόμενα – επιμέλεια – ευρετήρια: Κ.Θ. Πέτσιος. Ιωάννινα: Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων 2010, 875 σ.’, on Κριτικά: Φιλοσοφικές βιβλιοκρισίες (July 2011) <http://www.philosophica.gr/critica/2011-07.html>.

6 Marazopoulos, Chr. P., Θεόφιλος Κορυδαλέας: Ὁ πρωτοφιλόσοφος τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ Νεοαριστοτελισμοῦ (Athens 2008)Google Scholar.

7 For the edition of the commentary of Cremonini translated into Greek by Korydalleus see Antonioni, A., ‘Caesaris Cremonini In Aristotelis librum “De divinatione per somnium” commentarium adjecta versione anonyma Theophilo Corydaleo forse adjudicanda’, Miscellanea Marciana 7–9 (1992–4) 7–101Google Scholar. A recently discovered manuscript transmits an earlier version of Korydalleus' commentary on the Physics. A preliminary examination has shown that the text bears certain resemblances to four unpublished works of Cremonini; see Tebelis, E., ‘Η επίδραση της ευρωπαϊκής φιλοσοφίας του 17ου αιώνα στη διαμόρφωση της πρώιμης νεοελληνικής φυσικής φιλοσοφίας: Η περίπτωση του Θεόφιλου Κορυδαλέα’, in Terezis, Ch. (ed.), Τόκος εν καλώ. Τόμος τιμητικός - Αφιέρωμα στον Αύγουστο Μπαγιόνα (Athens 2016) 284–5Google Scholar.

8 Moisiodax, I., Ἀπολογία (Vienna 1780) 154Google Scholar.

9 Psimmenos, Ἡ ἑλληνικὴ φιλοσοφία, 231–3.

10 Fabricius, J. A., Bibliotheca graeca, XI (Hamburg 1722) 776Google Scholar. For the work of Prokopiou see Psimmenos, N., ‘Ἡ “Ἐπιτετμημένη ἐπαρίθμησις” τοῦ Δημητρίου Προκοπίου ὡς πηγὴ γνώσης τῆς νεοελληνικῆς φιλοσοφίας’, Ἠπειρωτικὰ Χρονικά 24 (1982) 204–48Google Scholar.

11 Psimmenos, Ἡ ἑλληνικὴ φιλοσοφία, 231–3.

12 Cremonini, C., De formis quatuor corporum simplicium, quae vocantur elementa (Venice 1605) 1, 2, 3, 5Google Scholar.

13 Korydalleus, Th., Γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς πέρι κατ’ Ἀριστοτέλην (Venice 1780) 27–8Google Scholar.

14 Op. cit., 4, 392.

15 Schmitt, Ch. B., Aristotle and the Renaissance (Cambridge, MA 1983) 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Psimmenos, N. K., ‘Θεοφίλου Κορυδαλέως Ὑπομνήματα συνοπτικά, καὶ ζητήματα εἰς τὴν περὶ Οὐρανοῦ πραγματείαν (ἀπόσπασμα)’, Τὰ νέα τοῦ Κ.Ε.ΝΕ.Φ. 8 (2001) 42Google Scholar.

17 The English text is the translation of Korydalleus’ text.

18 Psimmenos, ‘Ὑπομνήματα συνοπτικά’, 43.

19 Cremonini, C., Disputatio de coelo in tres partes divisa, De natura coeli. De motu coeli. De motoribus coeli abstractis. Adiecta est Apologogia dictorum Aristotelis De via lactea. De facie in orbe lunae (Venice 1613) 336Google Scholar.

20 The English text is the translation of the Greek text.

21 Mabilleau, L., Étude historique sur la philosophie de la Renaissance en Italie (Cesare Cremonini) (Paris 1881) 366Google Scholar.

22 Korydalleus, Γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς πέρι, 414.

23 Mabilleau, Étude historique, 47.

24 Korydalleus, Γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς πέρι, 153, 324, 362–3.

25 Jochem, O., Scholastisches, Christliches und Medizinisches aus dem Kommentar des Theophilos Korydalleus zu Aristoteles’ Schrift von der Seele (Giessen 1935) 37Google Scholar.

26 Tsourkas, Les débuts de l'enseignement, 111.

27 Psimmenos, ‘Ὑπομνήματα συνοπτικά’, 42.

28 Ch. Chronis, Τα Μετὰ τὰ φυσικὰ και η μεταφυσική του Αριστοτέλη στο έργο του Θεοφίλου Κορυδαλλέως: Η συμβολή του Θεοφίλου Κορυδαλλέως στην ερμηνεία του Αριστοτέλη (Thessaloniki 2001) 319 [digitized copy of the Εθνικό Αρχείο Διδακτορικών Διατριβών (Greece): <https://www.didaktorika.gr/eadd/handle/10442/22786>].

29 Korydalleus, Th., Εἴσοδος Φυσικῆς ἀκροάσεως κατ’ Ἀριστοτέλην (Venice 1779) 47–8Google Scholar.

30 Cremonini, C., Explanatio prooemii librorum Aristotelis De physico auditu. Cum introductione ad naturalem Arist. philosophiam, continente Tractatum de Paedia (Padua 1596) f. 44rGoogle Scholar.

31 Jochem, Scholastisches, 12.5, 19.23.

32 Korydalleus, Εἴσοδος, 44.

33 Cremonini, Explanatio, ff. 26v–37r.

34 Korydalleus, Εἴσοδος, 27, 32–3, 33.

35 Cremonini, Explanatio, ff. 22r, 27v.

36 Op. cit., f. 27v; Korydalleus, Εἴσοδος, 37.

37 Op. cit., 38.

38 Cremonini, Explanatio, f. 22r.

39 Korydalleus, Εἴσοδος, 38.

40 Korydalleus, Γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς πέρι, 239.

41 Edited in Kuhn, Venetischer Aristotelismus, 669–714.

42 Op. cit., 671–2, 676.

43 Korydalleus, Γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς πέρι, 396–7.

44 Benakis, L., ‘Ἀπὸ τὴν ἱστορία τοῦ Μεταβυζαντινοῦ Ἀριστοτελισμοῦ στὸν ἑλληνικὸ χῶρο: Ἀμφισβήτηση καὶ ὑπεράσπιση τοῦ φιλοσόφου στὸν 18ο αἰώνα. Νικόλαος घερζούλης – Δωρόθεος Λέσβιος’, Φιλοσοφία 7 (1977) 416–54Google Scholar [= Benakis, Μεταβυζαντινὴ φιλοσοφία, 34–72].

45 Psimmenos, Ἡ ἑλληνικὴ φιλοσοφία, 53–169 and 173–315 respectively.

46 Petsios, Ἡ Περὶ φύσεως συζήτηση, 169–90.

47 Marazopoulos, Θεόφιλος Κορυδαλέας, 23.