Aristote est l’inventeur de la notion de matière et de cause matérielle. Mais les passages oú il parle d’une matière absolument première sont rares dans le corpus aristotélicien. Le problème, posé depuis longtemps par les interprètes modernes, est le suivant : Aristote croyait‑il à l’existence d’une matière imperceptible, sans forme et sans qualités, en tant que niveau autonome de la réalité, ou envisageait‑il plutôt la matière première comme un objet logique, un pur concept abstrait ?On se propose ici d’analyser le dossier des passages aristotéliciens les plus sensibles sur la question de la matière première et, après un rapide status quaestionis des interprétations antiques et modernes, on avancera une proposition interprétative selon la ligne «traditionnelle», à contre‑courant par rapport à la tendance actuelle.

This paper focuses on Plotinus’ account of life and being in treatises VI, 2 [43] On the genera of being and III, 7 [45] On eternity and time. Life and being play a key role in Plotinus’ ontology since they characterise incorporeal realities as such (life and being cannot be drawn from the analysis of bodies). Therefore, focusing on these items makes it possible to attain an account of intelligible reality according to the principles appropriate to it. Three issues are considered: (1) the cognitive process through which the soul grasps being and life when it turns its cognitive activity away from the bodies and reverts to itself (VI, 2, 4‑6); (2) the status of being and life as genera of the intelligible reality (life is equivalent to intelligible motion: VI, 2, 7); (3) Plotinus’ account of life as the way of being typical of intelligible realities (III, 7); (4) his gradualist account of the hierarchy of life (III, 8 [30], 8; VI, 3 [44], 7; I, 4 [46], 3).

This essay analyses the use of the term/concept hilasterion (‘propitiatorium’, i.e. the cover of Ark of Covenant) in the hypomnematic corpus by Philo of Alexandria. This subject needs to be examined in relationship with the Greek translation of the Septuagint and the exegesis of the Hebrew kapporeth ; so it will be argued that here Philo deals with semitic thought more than with the categories of Greek philosophy, since the real and bodily presence of God on hilasterion differs ontologically from any allegoric interpretation : only a sound Hebrew contextualisation of the theme as šekhînâ might take away this concern. As a result it means that, speculatively, there does not exist Philo Gracus only but this coexists with a sort of often neglected Philo Hebraicus too, when Greek allegory and allegorism fail to make sense, just as in the case of the special point of view of hilasterion, due to its semitic nature not totally compressible into Greek forma mentis.

The Commentary on the Psalms is a monumental work which for more than thirty years consumed the energies of Augustine as exegete. The extraordinary quantity of this work as well as the exceptional number of manuscript traditions which it has spawned has delayed until now the production of a critical edition carried out according to the exacting criteria of modern textual criticism. The part of the editorial project which the Vienna Academy entrusted to the Patristic Institute, the «Augustinianum» (en. Ps. 101-150) has now been completed in five volumes published in the CSEL series (voll. 95, 1-5). The editor’s intention was to incorporate the progress made in modern textual criticism to the specific case of Augustine’s treatment of the Psalms, giving due attention to the peculiar characteristics both of the text and of the manuscript tradition.

Severian of Gabala’s homilies and Pseudo-Theodoret’s Quaestiones et responsiones ad Orthodoxos (CPG 6285; = QRO) exhibit some notable parallels. Such links show that a marginal current of the Antiochene school was still thriving by the end of the 5th century, i.e. the most probable date of QRO.

Gregory of Nyssa’s Laudatio altera S. Stephani Protomartyris (CPG 3187) has been critically published by Lendle from the two extant copies of the long recension, mostly disregarding the unique Greek witness of a short form which is attributed to John Chrysostom. Following the unveiling of an Armenian translation of the short recension, also attributed to Chrysostom, the paper examines its critical role, its links with the short Greek form and proposes a revision of Lendle’s text.