bodies, which supervenes upon the physical mixture (krasis) of their organic components (see
De prouidentia 148 Zonta, 75–77 Ruland; Quaestio 2.3). By this activity, the celestial power is
the cause both for providence, which guarantees preservation and well-being of living spe-
cies, and for individual fate. From fate, nonetheless, one is able to escape through education
and exertion, so that moral life remains up to us (eph’ he ̄min). As for the active intellect (nous
poie ̄tikos, of Aristotle’s De an. 3.5), this is identical with its peculiar object, namely the eternal
first intelligible, and is therefore itself eternal. But since the first intelligible is alike for all
rational beings, no place seems to remain in Alexander for the immortality of individual
souls, and Alexander’s Renaissance followers were charged with impiety for their position
in this regard.
Extant commentaries and minor works of Alexander are mainly edited within the CAG
volumes (1883–1901): 1. Comm. in Metaph. (Books 1–5 only are authentic); 2.1: In An. pr. I
(M. Wallies, 1883); 2.2: In Top. (M. Wallies, 1891); 3.1: In De sensu et sensato (P. Wendland,
1901); 3.2: In Meteor. (M. Hayduck, 1899). Treatises and opuscula: Suppl. Arist. 2.1: De anima
and Mantissa (I. Bruns, 1889); v. 2.2: De fato, Quaestiones, De mixtione (I. Bruns, 1892; also a
further edition of De fato by P. Thillet, 1984; a revision of Bruns’ Quaest. 1.10, 1.15, 2.3 by
Silvia Fazzo, Aporia e sistema, 2002; and of De mixtione by R.B. Todd, 1976). We also have
fragments of Alexander on Cat., De int., An. pr. I, An. post. (ed. P. Moraux, 1979), Phys., De
caelo (fr. on Book I ed. by A. Rescigno, 2004), De gen. et corr., De an., and Met. XII, and Arabic
translations of Alexander’s lost De prouidentia (ed. J.-H. Ruland, Diss. Saarbrucken, 1976; P.
Thillet’s Thèse d’état, Paris 1979; M. Zonta in Silvia Fazzo, ed., Alessandro di Afrodisia. La
provvidenza. Questioni sulla provvidenza, 1999), De principiis (ed. C. Genequand, Alexander of
Aphrodisias On the Cosmos, 2001), and of other minor writings. Many of Alexander’s works
have been translated into English, among others in the ACA.
The name “Alexander” has been abused, especially in the Middle Ages, as a generous
label for different writings with some Aristotelian connection; texts preserved only in Arabic
with no Greek parallel or counterpart must be handled with caution as sources for Alexander;
and so also Greek texts, opuscula, or fragments, when no safe indication of authorship is
given. Therefore, authenticity is sometimes controversial (e.g. of some opuscula, including
Quaestio 2.21 and the famous De intellectu = Mantissa II), and some works are certainly spuri-
ous: the commentaries to Soph. El. and Met. 6–14 (both by Michael of Ephesos), various
medical writings (edited by Ideler 1 [1841/1963], and by Kapetanaki and Sharples [2006]),
some Arabic treatises or titles of treatises, most of which are polemical, against the thinkers
denying creatio ex nihilo and against G.
R.W. Sharples, “Alexander of Aphrodisias: Scholasticism and Innovation,” ANRW 2.36.2 (1987)
1176 – 1243 (good starting point on themes, problems, and bibliography); DPA 1 (1989) 125–139,
R. Goulet and M. Aouad; Moraux v. 3 (2001), with a chapter on ethics and a general bibliography
by R.W. Sharples, integrated and supplemented in DPA S. (2003) 61–67, Silvia Fazzo; Eadem,
“Alexandre d’Aphrodise contre Galien: la naissance d’une légende,” Philosophie Antique 2 (2002)
109 – 144; J. Sellars, “The Aristotelian Commentators: a Bibliographical Guide,” in Philosophy,
Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries, edited by P. Adamson, H. Baltussen and
M.W.F. Stone, BICS S.82.1 (2004) 244–245.
Silvia Fazzo
Alexander of Aphrodisias, pseudo, On Fevers (150 – 200 CE)
Otherwise unknown medical writer, whose treatise On Fevers defines and classifies them
according to the Pneumaticist school, based on a lengthy discussion of the nature of
ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS, PSEUDO, ON FEVERS