Books by Mirjam E Kotwick
Alexander of Aphrodisias’s commentary (about AD 200) is the earliest extant commentary on Aristot... more Alexander of Aphrodisias’s commentary (about AD 200) is the earliest extant commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, and it is the most valuable indirect witness to the Metaphysics text and its transmission. This study is a systematic investigation into the version of the Metaphysics that Alexander used when writing his commentary, and into the various ways his text, his commentary, and the texts transmitted through our manuscripts relate to one another. Through a careful analysis of lemmata, quotations, and Alexander’s discussion of Aristotle’s argument I show how to uncover and partly reconstruct a Metaphysics version from the second century AD. I then use this version for improving the text that came down to us by the direct manuscript tradition and for finding solutions to some of the puzzles in this tradition. Through a side-by-side examination of Alexander’s text, his interpretation of Aristotle’s thought, and the directly transmitted versions of the Metaphysics, I reveal how Alexander’s commentary influenced the text of our manuscripts at different stages of the transmission process. This study is the first book-length examination of a commentary as a witness to an ancient philosophical text. This blend of textual criticism and philosophical analysis both expands on existing methodologies in classical scholarship and develops new ones.
Papers by Mirjam E Kotwick
The Classical Quarterly, 2021
This article argues for an emendation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics A 10, 993a13–15. The emendation ... more This article argues for an emendation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics A 10, 993a13–15. The emendation is based on a hitherto overlooked reading preserved in Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentary on A 7. First, the article problematizes the reading of the Metaphysics manuscripts in terms of syntax, diction, and content. Second, it shows that Alexander’s reading is free of all three problems. Third, it argues for the originality of Alexander’s reading according to the principle utrum in alterum abiturum erat? and based on the fact that the new reading reveals a subtle didactic link between A 7 and A 10 that sheds new light on the argumentative architecture of Metaphysics A.
The invention of allegorical interpretation is usually attributed to Theagenes of Rhegium (6th ce... more The invention of allegorical interpretation is usually attributed to Theagenes of Rhegium (6th century BCE), who, Porphyry reports, interpreted the Homeric battle between the gods (Il. 20) as the opposition among physical elements. I argue that the practice of allegorical interpretation is present in Homer’s text itself. I first establish the procedures and rationale behind allegorical interpretation in Theagenes, Metrodorus, and the Derveni Papyrus. I then reveal the presence of this interpretative practice in the interpretation of Penelope’s dream in Od. 19. This result elucidates the Homeric text and indicates that our earliest instance of allegorical interpretation is to be found in a Homeric depiction of a dream interpretation.
Studies of the Derveni Papyrus have given much attention to the influence that presocratic thinke... more Studies of the Derveni Papyrus have given much attention to the influence that presocratic thinkers like Anaxagoras and Diogenes of Apollonia had on the Derveni author’s cosmology. Empedocles is strikingly absent from these investigations. This paper argues that the Derveni author indeed took inspiration from Empedocles’ physical theory. This paper defends this view with an analysis of how both authors explain the combination of heterogeneous particles during the early cosmogonic stages. It argues that the parallels between their accounts are pronounced and that, for the Derveni author, Empedocles’ view on Aphrodite’s power to unify was as promising as Anaxagoras’ view on the unification of unlike particles was insufficient.
This paper analyzes the parallels between the Derveni Papyrus and the “allegory of the leaky jars... more This paper analyzes the parallels between the Derveni Papyrus and the “allegory of the leaky jars” that Socrates ascribes to a “wise man” in Gorgias 493a–c. The passage from the Gorgias has been mentioned in the scholarship on the Derveni Papyrus, but never been analyzed in light of it. This paper reveals that there are striking parallels between the two texts in four different respects. The parallels not only illuminate the Derveni Papyrus’s allegorical method of interpretation and its purpose; they also suggest that this kind of interpretation of religious texts was more widespread than previously thought.
In Metaphysics 2.2, 994b21-27 Aristotle comments on how it is possible to think something that is... more In Metaphysics 2.2, 994b21-27 Aristotle comments on how it is possible to think something that is infinitely divisible. Given that Aristotle denies elsewhere that it is possible to think an infinite number of items the passage offers important evidence for Aristotle’s positive account of how one can think something that is infinite. However, Aristotle’s statement in Metaphysics 2.2 has puzzled interpreters since antiquity. This puzzlement has been partly due to a textual problem in the passage. In this paper we first restore the original reading of Metaph. 2.2, 994b25-26 by making use of the evidence in Alexander of Aphrodisias’s commentary and second make sense of the restored passage by interpreting it in light of Aristotle’s thoughts on the infinite in Physics 3 and 8.
Le Travail du Savoir / Wissensbewältigung. Philosophie, sciences exactes et sciences appliquées dans l’Antiquité. AKAN-Einzelschriften, Band 10, edited by Victor Gysembergh and Andreas Schwab, 2015
Aristotle’s criticism of Anaxagoras’ use of Nous as efficient cause at Metaphysics A 4, 985a18–21... more Aristotle’s criticism of Anaxagoras’ use of Nous as efficient cause at Metaphysics A 4, 985a18–21 is preserved differently in the α- and the β-version of the Metaphysics. The α-text contains an additional line, which Primavesi 2012 identified as a later supplement to the α-text. This chapter explores the extant ancient Greek commentaries on this Metaphysics passage, viz., those by Alexander, Asclepius and the author of the so-called ‘versio altera of Alexander’, in order to find information about the origin of the α-line. The evidence in the commentaries suggests that the Metaphysics exemplars used by the commentators did not contain the additional line. The α-line, however, is nearly identical with a formulation of the Metaphysics passage in Asclepius’ commentary: While this formulation fits perfectly into the grammatical as well as philosophical context of Asclepius’ comments, it is odd in the Metaphysics passage. This suggests that Asclepius did in fact author the α-line and that at some point in late antiquity a scribe inserted the line from Asclepius’ commentary into the α-version of the Metaphysics text.
The Classical Quarterly, 2014
Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 35 , 2011
Es gibt einen alten Streit' um die Bewertung des Aulus Gellius und seiner Noctes Atticae: Während... more Es gibt einen alten Streit' um die Bewertung des Aulus Gellius und seiner Noctes Atticae: Während die eine Seite Gellius als wertvollen Lieferanten von Zeugnissen und Zitaten von uns anderweitig oftmals nur spärlich überlieferten antiken Autoren immerhin dankbar anerkennt, preist ihn die andere Seite als genialen Kompilator, dessen Werk unabhängig von der Frage nach der Bereitstellung von Texten und Testimonien anderer Autoren einen großen Eigenwert besitzt. Beiden Seiten gemeinsam ist dabei die implizite Annahme, daß die gellianische Darstellungsform vom darin vermittelten Quellenmaterial klar geschieden werden kann. Um zu sehen, wann eine solche Trennung tatsächlich möglich und wann sie vielmehr unmöglich ist, bietet sich folgende Fallunterscheidung an:
Dissertation by Mirjam E Kotwick
Reviews by Mirjam E Kotwick
Uploads
Books by Mirjam E Kotwick
Papers by Mirjam E Kotwick
Dissertation by Mirjam E Kotwick
Reviews by Mirjam E Kotwick