Title | Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2023 |
Published in | Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception |
Pages | 441-456 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Muzala, Melina |
Translator(s) |
The focus of this chapter is one aspect of Aristotle’s dialectic which has been under-explored until recently and may throw some light on the approach of the late Platonist philosopher and scholar Simplicius (c. 480–c. 540 CE), in particular his Aristotelian tendencies when it comes to constructing his huge commentaries. I am referring to one of the possible applications of the dialectical method as sketched by Aristotle in his first and eighth books of the Topics. In my previous work I have been studying this aspect of Aristotle’s methodology, emphasizing the important distinction between propaedeutic and applied dialectic. At the core of those efforts was an attempt to show how one can take Aristotle’s claims for a scientific use of dialectic seriously, so long as we have a proper understanding of the status of propaedeutic dialectic as it is expounded in his Topics (school practice and exercises) against the applied form of (evolved) dialectic which goes far beyond this early form, debating skills which have become transformed into an internalized form of dialectic. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qrKKk0yO57h5GCh |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1578","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1578,"authors_free":[{"id":2757,"entry_id":1578,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2758,"entry_id":1578,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":573,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Muzala, Melina","free_first_name":"Melina","free_last_name":"Muzala","norm_person":{"id":573,"first_name":"Melina","last_name":"Muzala","full_name":"Muzala, Melina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1229010815","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic"},"abstract":"The focus of this chapter is one aspect of Aristotle\u2019s dialectic which has been\r\nunder-explored until recently and may throw some light on the approach of the\r\nlate Platonist philosopher and scholar Simplicius (c. 480\u2013c. 540 CE), in particular\r\nhis Aristotelian tendencies when it comes to constructing his huge commentaries.\r\nI am referring to one of the possible applications of the dialectical method as\r\nsketched by Aristotle in his first and eighth books of the Topics. In my previous\r\nwork I have been studying this aspect of Aristotle\u2019s methodology, emphasizing\r\nthe important distinction between propaedeutic and applied dialectic. At the core of those efforts was an attempt to show how one can take Aristotle\u2019s claims\r\nfor a scientific use of dialectic seriously, so long as we have a proper understanding of the status of propaedeutic dialectic as it is expounded in his Topics (school practice and exercises) against the applied form of (evolved) dialectic which goes far beyond this early form, debating skills which have become transformed into an internalized form of dialectic. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2023","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qrKKk0yO57h5GCh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":573,"full_name":"Muzala, Melina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1578,"section_of":1577,"pages":"441-456","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1577,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2023","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The volume focusses on ancient Greek dialectic and its impact on later philosophical thought, up to Byzantium. The contributions are written by distinguished scholars in their respective fields of study and shed light on the relation of ancient Greek dialectic to various aspects of human life and soul, to self-knowledge and self-consciousness, to science, rhetoric, and political theory. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MoGCt68R9BNx3zl","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1577,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Topics in Ancient Philosophy\/ Themen der antiken Philosophie","volume":"10","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2023]}
Title | “Reputable Opinions” (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2022 |
Published in | Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World |
Pages | 151-174 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike |
Translator(s) |
[Introduction, p. 8-9: Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius are at the centre of Han Baltussen’s paper in this volume. Starting with Aristotle’s use of earlier opinions and the methodical framework provided by the Topics, Baltussen considers different kinds of collections of doxai (or perhaps of endoxa, which in Aristotle may turn some doxographies rather into “endoxographies”). He argues that a distinction between doxography and endoxography may clarify several aspects regarding the development of the long tradition of doxaidiscussions, inasmuch as it helps to gain insight into the origin of doxography itself and its relation to the early Peripatetic habit of evaluating earlier opinions, i.e. of “applied dialectics.” Seen in this light, Simplicius’ way of reading Aristotle can also be analysed within the framework of his commentaries to elucidate his philosophical agenda and his version of the endoxographical method]. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/O7CkQ7ov1PzjUz2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1522","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1522,"authors_free":[{"id":2643,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2644,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2645,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u201cReputable Opinions\u201d (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?","main_title":{"title":"\u201cReputable Opinions\u201d (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?"},"abstract":"[Introduction, p. 8-9: Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius are at the centre of Han Baltussen\u2019s paper in this volume. Starting with Aristotle\u2019s use of earlier opinions\r\nand the methodical framework provided by the Topics, Baltussen considers different kinds of collections of doxai (or perhaps of endoxa, which\r\nin Aristotle may turn some doxographies rather into \u201cendoxographies\u201d). He argues that a distinction between doxography and endoxography may clarify several aspects regarding the development of the long tradition of doxaidiscussions, inasmuch as it helps to gain insight into the origin of doxography\r\nitself and its relation to the early Peripatetic habit of evaluating earlier opinions, i.e. of \u201capplied dialectics.\u201d Seen in this light, Simplicius\u2019 way of reading Aristotle can also be analysed within the framework of his commentaries to elucidate his philosophical agenda and his version of the endoxographical method].","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O7CkQ7ov1PzjUz2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1522,"section_of":1521,"pages":"151-174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1521,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Lammer-Jas_2022","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume\u2014the proceedings of a 2018 conference at LMU Munich funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation\u2014brings together, for the first time, experts on Greek, Syriac, and Arabic traditions of doxography. Fourteen contributions provide new insight into state-of-the-art contemporary research on the widespread phenomenon of doxography. Together, they demonstrate how Greek, Syriac, and Arabic forms of doxography share common features and raise related questions that benefit interdisciplinary exchange among colleagues from various disciplines, such as classics, Arabic studies, and the history of philosophy. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XdQoRcGvPjnpUca","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
Title | Simplicius and the Commentator's Task: Clarifying Exegeses and Exegetical Techniques |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2019 |
Published in | Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier |
Pages | 159-183 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Strobel, Benedikt |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius’ exegetical strategies are explicitly and implicitly formed by what he was reading. What we still have shows him reading Aristotle and his interpreters. His isolation resulting from Justinian’s prohibition on pagan teaching activity may have contributed to the length of his expositions – which makes it plausible, therefore, that both historical and ideological reasons help to explain the size and approach of his works. In broad terms, we can characterise his method as close reading of texts, the use of multiple texts and authors, based on lemmata and an overall mixed agenda (pedagogy, philosophy, ideology). At a more detailed level we saw that he is capable of handling text variations and different manuscripts, speaks in a self-effacing way (a personal voice is rare), and uses advanced exegetical strategies (majority views important; letter vs. spirit; technical terminology). All these features justify the conclusion that his work was a synthesis of both philosophical views and their exegetical clarifications. Overall, Simplicius’ aim to annotate Aristotle’s work and preserve Greek philosophy with its exegetical tradition makes for a truly polymathic program driven by different, and sometimes competing, agendas. [conclusion, p. 180] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/A73Tqj9a5m6hmAe |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"655","_score":null,"_source":{"id":655,"authors_free":[{"id":943,"entry_id":655,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":944,"entry_id":655,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":326,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":{"id":326,"first_name":" Benedikt","last_name":"Strobel,","full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173882056","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and the Commentator's Task: Clarifying Exegeses and Exegetical Techniques","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and the Commentator's Task: Clarifying Exegeses and Exegetical Techniques"},"abstract":"Simplicius\u2019 exegetical strategies are explicitly and implicitly formed by what he was reading. What we still have shows him reading Aristotle and\r\nhis interpreters. His isolation resulting from Justinian\u2019s prohibition on pagan teaching activity may have contributed to the length of his expositions \u2013 which makes it plausible, therefore, that both historical and ideological reasons help to explain the size and approach of his works. In broad terms, we can characterise his method as close reading of texts, the use of multiple texts\r\nand authors, based on lemmata and an overall mixed agenda (pedagogy, philosophy, ideology). At a more detailed level we saw that he is capable of\r\nhandling text variations and different manuscripts, speaks in a self-effacing way (a personal voice is rare), and uses advanced exegetical strategies (majority views important; letter vs. spirit; technical terminology). All these features\r\njustify the conclusion that his work was a synthesis of both philosophical views and their exegetical clarifications. Overall, Simplicius\u2019 aim to annotate Aristotle\u2019s work and preserve Greek philosophy with its exegetical tradition makes for a truly polymathic program driven by different, and sometimes competing, agendas. [conclusion, p. 180]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/A73Tqj9a5m6hmAe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":326,"full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":655,"section_of":289,"pages":"159-183","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2019]}
Title | § 162. Simplikios |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2018 |
Published in | Die Philosophie der Antike (Band 5: Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike) (= Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike. Band 5/3) |
Pages | 2060-2084 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Horn, Christoph , Riedweg, Christoph , Wyrwa, Dietmar |
Translator(s) |
Der Eintrag bietet eine ausführliche Darstellung von Simplikios, einschließlich einer Diskussion über sein Leben, seine Werke (literarische Tradition, Methodologie, Schriften) und seine Lehren (Erkenntnistheorie, Logik, Ontologie, Ethik und Naturphilosophie). Zudem beleuchtet er Simplikios’ Auseinandersetzung mit dem Manichäismus sowie seine Nachwirkung. Die Übersetzung aus dem Englischen stammt von Andreas Schatzmann. [derived from the entire text] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IKDgE4wXFZKihDY |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"653","_score":null,"_source":{"id":653,"authors_free":[{"id":938,"entry_id":653,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":939,"entry_id":653,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":256,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Horn, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Horn","norm_person":{"id":256,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Horn","full_name":"Horn, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115589406","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":940,"entry_id":653,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":386,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Riedweg, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Riedweg","norm_person":{"id":386,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Riedweg","full_name":"Riedweg, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/111151228","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":941,"entry_id":653,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":387,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wyrwa, Dietmar","free_first_name":"Dietmar","free_last_name":"Wyrwa","norm_person":{"id":387,"first_name":"Dietmar","last_name":"Wyrwa","full_name":"Wyrwa, Dietmar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142943592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u00a7 162. Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"\u00a7 162. Simplikios"},"abstract":"Der Eintrag bietet eine ausf\u00fchrliche Darstellung von Simplikios, einschlie\u00dflich einer Diskussion \u00fcber sein Leben, seine Werke (literarische Tradition, Methodologie, Schriften) und seine Lehren (Erkenntnistheorie, Logik, Ontologie, Ethik und Naturphilosophie). Zudem beleuchtet er Simplikios\u2019 Auseinandersetzung mit dem Manich\u00e4ismus sowie seine Nachwirkung. Die \u00dcbersetzung aus dem Englischen stammt von Andreas Schatzmann. [derived from the entire text]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IKDgE4wXFZKihDY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":386,"full_name":"Riedweg, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":387,"full_name":"Wyrwa, Dietmar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":653,"section_of":288,"pages":"2060-2084","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":288,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Philosophie der Antike (Band 5: Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Sp\u00e4tantike) (= Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike. Band 5\/3)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rieweg\/Horn\/Wyrma2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2015","abstract":"Mehr als f\u00fcnfzig international auf ihrem Gebiet f\u00fchrende Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler pr\u00e4sentieren in diesem f\u00fcnften und letzten Band der Reihe \u00abDie Philosophie der Antike\u00bb das \u00fcberaus facettenreiche pagane, j\u00fcdische und fr\u00fchchristliche philosophische Erbe der ersten sieben Jahrhunderte nach Christus \u2013 einer Periode, in der die Grundlagen nicht nur der abendl\u00e4ndischen und byzantinischen, sondern auch der islamischen Denktradition gelegt worden sind. Mit den detaillierten und umfassenden Darstellungen, die den neuesten Stand der philosophiegeschichtlichen Forschung reflektieren, zielt das Werk darauf ab, f\u00fcr die Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Sp\u00e4tantike zur ersten Anlaufstelle f\u00fcr Forschende der Altertumswissenschaften, aber auch der Theologie, der Philosophie, der Judaistik und der Islamwissenschaft sowie allgemein der Geisteswissenschaften zu werden.\r\n\r\nDer Disposition liegt die \u00dcberzeugung zugrunde, dass mit der paganen und der j\u00fcdisch-\u00adchristlichen Philosophie nicht etwa zwei gro\u00dfe weltanschauliche Bl\u00f6cke gegeneinander abzugrenzen und somit isoliert zu betrachten sind, sondern dass es angemessener ist, diese in ihrem lebendigen Austausch miteinander darzustellen. Entsprechend wurde f\u00fcr den Bandaufbau ein Mischprinzip gew\u00e4hlt, bei dem die chronologische Folge die zentrale Rolle spielt, zudem aber auch das Lehrer-Sch\u00fcler-Verh\u00e4ltnis, die Schulzugeh\u00f6rigkeit eines Autors und schlie\u00dflich ebenfalls seine religi\u00f6se Orientierung und seine geografische Situierung ber\u00fccksichtigt werden. So gelingt es, die zum Teil \u00fcberraschenden Interdependenzen zwischen Autoren und Schulen, die durchaus religions\u00fcbergreifend festzustellen sind, deutlicher herauszuarbeiten. Die faszinierende, bis heute in unserer Kultur stark nachwirkende Epoche wird auf diese Art \u00e4u\u00dferst plastisch beschrieben und f\u00fcr die Gegenwart erschlossen.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kuKt9IQVMLlHfbR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":288,"pubplace":"Basel","publisher":"Schwabe","series":"","volume":"5\/3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2018]}
Title | Philosophers, Exegetes, Scholars: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary from Plato to Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre |
Pages | 173-194 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Kraus, Christina S. , Stray, Christopher |
Translator(s) |
This chapter traces the evolution of the philosophical commentary and aims to show how the increasingly scholarly nature of the commentary culture exerted a distinctive influence on philosophical methods and discourses. While Plato was perhaps a proto-exegete, systematic commenting only took off in the first century bee once an authoritative “corpus” of works had been established. Commenting on specific texts became an important way to philosophize. The ancient philosophical commentary thus emerged as a “natural by-product” of the ongoing dialogue between teachers and students. Good evidence for written commentary is found in the first century BCE and CE, foreshadowing the rise of the full running commentary of a quite scholarly nature by Aristotelians like Aspasius and Alexander of Aphrodisias (2nd c. CE); after Plotinus (205-270 CE) the Platonists added their own interpretive works on Aristotle, leading to the comprehensive exegeses of Proclus (fifth c.) and Simplicius (sixth c. CE). |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6lizn5XYGEpJYmH |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"963","_score":null,"_source":{"id":963,"authors_free":[{"id":1445,"entry_id":963,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1446,"entry_id":963,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":384,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kraus, Christina S. ","free_first_name":"Christina S.","free_last_name":"Kraus","norm_person":{"id":384,"first_name":"Christina S.","last_name":"Kraus","full_name":"Kraus, Christina S.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1067516212","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1447,"entry_id":963,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":385,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stray, Christopher","free_first_name":"Christopher","free_last_name":"Stray","norm_person":{"id":385,"first_name":"Christopher","last_name":"Stray","full_name":"Stray, Christopher","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135638674","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philosophers, Exegetes, Scholars: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary from Plato to Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Philosophers, Exegetes, Scholars: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary from Plato to Simplicius"},"abstract":"This chapter traces the evolution of the philosophical commentary and aims to show how the increasingly scholarly nature of the commentary culture exerted a distinctive influence on philosophical methods and discourses. While Plato was perhaps a proto-exegete, systematic commenting only took off in the first century bee once an authoritative \u201ccorpus\u201d of works had been established. Commenting on specific texts became an important way to philosophize. The ancient philosophical commentary thus emerged as a \u201cnatural by-product\u201d of the ongoing dialogue between teachers and students. Good evidence for written commentary is found in the first century BCE and CE, foreshadowing the rise of the full running commentary of a quite scholarly nature by Aristotelians like Aspasius and Alexander of Aphrodisias (2nd c. CE); after Plotinus (205-270 CE) the Platonists added their own interpretive works on Aristotle, leading to the comprehensive exegeses of Proclus (fifth c.) and Simplicius (sixth c. CE).","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6lizn5XYGEpJYmH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":384,"full_name":"Kraus, Christina S.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":385,"full_name":"Stray, Christopher","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":963,"section_of":292,"pages":"173-194","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":292,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Kraus\/Stray2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2015","abstract":"This book consists of twenty-six chapters on classical commentaries which deal with commentaries from the ancient world to the twentieth century. The book contributes to the interface between two emerging fields of study: the history of scholarship and the history of the book. It builds on earlier work on this area by paying particular attention to: (1) specific editions, whether those regarded as classics in their own right, or those that seem representative of important trends or orientations in scholarship; (2) traditions of commentary on specific classical authors; and (3) the processes of publishing and printing as they have related to the production of editions. The book takes account of the material form of commentaries and of their role in education: the chapters deal both with academic books and also with books written for schools, and pay particular attention to the role of commentaries in the reception of classical texts.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6lizn5XYGEpJYmH","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":292,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | Simplicius on elements and causes in Greek philosophy: critical appraisal or philosophical synthesis? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2015 |
Published in | Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity |
Pages | 111-128 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Marmodoro, Anna , Prince, Brian |
Translator(s) |
One of Simplicius’ contributions on causes in the commentaries, as has been pointed out recently, is that he clarifies the use of ‘principle,’ ‘cause,’ and ‘element’ in Aristotle and disagrees with the notion that they can be used interchangeably. His overall exegesis becomes quite distinctive by incorporating many more views from previous exegetes into his textual analysis than one would think necessary. A good example comes at In physicorum libris 19.21–20.2, where Alexander is quoted as saying that Aristotle may be referring to axioms (axiomata) when speaking about general descriptions of principles (ta koina). Simplicius disagrees: he seems to think that we acquire knowledge of the principles through observation. That the problematic nature of the ‘elements’ requires further attention is clear from Simplicius’ analysis of Aristotle’s Physics A, the book dedicated to a review of earlier theories on principles. My aim in this chapter is to examine Simplicius’ technique of composition and how it helps structure his evaluative comments. Such an investigation will clarify how his remarkably inclusive selection procedure seeks to draw on whatever sources he thinks useful for his purpose. In past studies, some of Simplicius’ own views on principles and causes in natural philosophy have been stated with considerable clarity and acumen. In response to Aristotle’s text, he will, directly or indirectly, declare his own position regarding the nature and knowledge of principles and causes. He analyzes Aristotle’s ideas on elements, matter, and their relationship with reference to Aristotle’s corpus, to Plato, or by applying Neoplatonic ideas. These analyses are often based on his famous essays on place and time (In phys. 4), where Simplicius’ own views are clearly stated. By contrast, it is not so easy to separate out views from his discursive evaluations, and scholars often make assumptions about the relative value of the materials encountered—the different ‘sources,’ so to speak, which he selected and gave a place in his account. [introduction p. 111-112] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/g1SyUqDyUcBATre |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"912","_score":null,"_source":{"id":912,"authors_free":[{"id":1343,"entry_id":912,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2089,"entry_id":912,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":47,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","free_first_name":"Anna","free_last_name":"Marmodoro","norm_person":{"id":47,"first_name":"Anna","last_name":"Marmodoro","full_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1043592326","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2090,"entry_id":912,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":48,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Prince, Brian","free_first_name":"Brian","free_last_name":"Prince","norm_person":{"id":48,"first_name":"Brian","last_name":"Prince","full_name":"Prince, Brian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on elements and causes in Greek philosophy: critical appraisal or philosophical synthesis?","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on elements and causes in Greek philosophy: critical appraisal or philosophical synthesis?"},"abstract":"One of Simplicius\u2019 contributions on causes in the commentaries, as has been pointed out recently, is that he clarifies the use of \u2018principle,\u2019 \u2018cause,\u2019 and \u2018element\u2019 in Aristotle and disagrees with the notion that they can be used interchangeably. His overall exegesis becomes quite distinctive by incorporating many more views from previous exegetes into his textual analysis than one would think necessary. A good example comes at In physicorum libris 19.21\u201320.2, where Alexander is quoted as saying that Aristotle may be referring to axioms (axiomata) when speaking about general descriptions of principles (ta koina). Simplicius disagrees: he seems to think that we acquire knowledge of the principles through observation. That the problematic nature of the \u2018elements\u2019 requires further attention is clear from Simplicius\u2019 analysis of Aristotle\u2019s Physics A, the book dedicated to a review of earlier theories on principles.\r\n\r\nMy aim in this chapter is to examine Simplicius\u2019 technique of composition and how it helps structure his evaluative comments. Such an investigation will clarify how his remarkably inclusive selection procedure seeks to draw on whatever sources he thinks useful for his purpose. In past studies, some of Simplicius\u2019 own views on principles and causes in natural philosophy have been stated with considerable clarity and acumen. In response to Aristotle\u2019s text, he will, directly or indirectly, declare his own position regarding the nature and knowledge of principles and causes. He analyzes Aristotle\u2019s ideas on elements, matter, and their relationship with reference to Aristotle\u2019s corpus, to Plato, or by applying Neoplatonic ideas. These analyses are often based on his famous essays on place and time (In phys. 4), where Simplicius\u2019 own views are clearly stated. By contrast, it is not so easy to separate out views from his discursive evaluations, and scholars often make assumptions about the relative value of the materials encountered\u2014the different \u2018sources,\u2019 so to speak, which he selected and gave a place in his account. [introduction p. 111-112]","btype":2,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/g1SyUqDyUcBATre","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":47,"full_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":48,"full_name":"Prince, Brian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":912,"section_of":155,"pages":"111-128","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":155,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Marmodoro\/Prince2015","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2015","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2015","abstract":"Written by a group of leading scholars, this unique collection of essays investigates the views of both pagan and Christian philosophers on causation and the creation of the cosmos. Structured in two parts, the volume first looks at divine agency and how late antique thinkers, including the Stoics, Plotinus, Porphyry, Simplicius, Philoponus and Gregory of Nyssa, tackled questions such as: is the cosmos eternal? Did it come from nothing or from something pre-existing? How was it caused to come into existence? Is it material or immaterial? The second part looks at questions concerning human agency and responsibility, including the problem of evil and the nature of will, considering thinkers such as Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus and Augustine. Highlighting some of the most important and interesting aspects of these philosophical debates, the volume will be of great interest to upper-level students and scholars of philosophy, classics, theology and ancient history. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lpl3CeEXUUAj1hP","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":155,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2015]}
Title | Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 1.5–9’ |
Type | Monograph |
Language | English |
Date | 2012 |
Publication Place | London |
Publisher | Bloomsbury |
Series | Ancient Commentators on Aristotle |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Simplicius |
Editor(s) | Baltussen, Han , Atkinson, Michael , Share, Michael , Mueller, Ian |
Translator(s) | Baltussen, Han(Baltussen, Han) , Atkinson, M.(Atkinson, Michael ) , Share, Michael (Share, Michael ) , Mueller, Ian(Mueller, Ian) , |
Simplicius' greatest contribution in his commentary on Aristotle on Physics 1.5-9 lies in his treatment of matter. The sixth-century philosopher starts with a valuable elucidation of what Aristotle means by 'principle' and 'element' in Physics. Simplicius' own conception of matter is of a quantity that is utterly diffuse because of its extreme distance from its source, the Neoplatonic One, and he tries to find this conception both in Plato's account of space and in a stray remark of Aristotle's. Finally, Simplicius rejects the Manichaean view that matter is evil and answers a Christian objection that to make matter imperishable is to put it on a level with God. This is the first translation of Simplicius' important work into English. [official abstact] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Pv4w4aOCf88Ez2l |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"124","_score":null,"_source":{"id":124,"authors_free":[{"id":150,"entry_id":124,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":151,"entry_id":124,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":445,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Atkinson, M.","free_first_name":"M.","free_last_name":"Atkinson","norm_person":{"id":445,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Atkinson","full_name":"Atkinson, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":152,"entry_id":124,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":27,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Share, Michael ","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Share","norm_person":{"id":27,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Share","full_name":"Share, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142260010","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":153,"entry_id":124,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2317,"entry_id":124,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2318,"entry_id":124,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2319,"entry_id":124,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":445,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Atkinson, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Atkinson","norm_person":{"id":445,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Atkinson","full_name":"Atkinson, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2320,"entry_id":124,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":27,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Share, Michael ","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Share","norm_person":{"id":27,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Share","full_name":"Share, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142260010","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2321,"entry_id":124,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 1.5\u20139\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 1.5\u20139\u2019"},"abstract":"Simplicius' greatest contribution in his commentary on Aristotle on Physics 1.5-9 lies in his treatment of matter. The sixth-century philosopher starts with a valuable elucidation of what Aristotle means by 'principle' and 'element' in Physics. Simplicius' own conception of matter is of a quantity that is utterly diffuse because of its extreme distance from its source, the Neoplatonic One, and he tries to find this conception both in Plato's account of space and in a stray remark of Aristotle's. Finally, Simplicius rejects the Manichaean view that matter is evil and answers a Christian objection that to make matter imperishable is to put it on a level with God. This is the first translation of Simplicius' important work into English. [official abstact]","btype":1,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Pv4w4aOCf88Ez2l","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":445,"full_name":"Atkinson, Michael ","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":27,"full_name":"Share, Michael ","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":445,"full_name":"Atkinson, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":27,"full_name":"Share, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":124,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2012]}
Title | Simplicius of Cilicia |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2011 |
Published in | The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II |
Pages | 711-732 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Gerson, Lloyd P. |
Translator(s) |
The few facts we have about Simplicius’ life come from his own works and a few other sources. He came from Cilicia (south-eastern Anatolia), as Agathias tells us (Hist. 2.30). He was educated by Ammonius in Alexandria (fl. 490 CE, cf. In Cael. 26.18–19) and Damascius (fl. 520 CE) in Athens (In Phys. 601.19). Among influential figures on his philosophical outlook are Porphyry, the learned pupil and biographer of Plotinus (245–320), Iamblichus (fl. 300 CE, referred to as "the divine Iamblichus," In Phys. 60.7; 639.23, etc.), and Proclus ("the teacher of my teachers," In Phys. 611.11–12, cf. 795.4–5). The expulsion of Platonists from Athens in 532 CE after Justinian’s ban on pagan teaching ended school activities in 529 CE (Malalas Chronicle 18.47), the cross-references between the extant works, and the lack of evidence after 540 CE suggest that his lifespan roughly spans 480–560 CE. Allusive comments in a discussion of the role of the philosopher in the city in his commentary on Epictetus (In Epict. 32.65.30–9 D., with reference to Plato Rep. 496d) make it probable that he wrote that commentary before the others, while still in Athens, as does his mention of the oppressive situation in Athens (ibid., epilogue). His personal note on friendship (In Epict. 87.39–44/354 Hadot) indicates that he experienced help from friends who looked after his family while he was away, but we cannot establish the nature and date of this event. There has been much debate and speculation about where he might have gone after the trip to Persia with Damascius and other colleagues (531 CE), when the hope of an ideal state under a "philosopher-king," the enlightened ruler Chosroes I (Khusrau), was not fulfilled. However, the issue has not been resolved so far. The treaty of 532 with Justinian apparently had a clause added to guarantee the safety of the pagan philosophers, but it is not easy to see how guarantees could have been given. Simplicius may have stayed in Harran (i.e., Carrhae) in Syria near the border of, and inside, the Persian Empire as a safe haven for non-Christians. Tardieu (1987) has made a strong case to this effect on the basis of references to local features (rafts made of inflated animal skins typical for the Euphrates and different types of calendars found in Harran). The Harranians certainly received special treatment from Chosroes for retaining their paganism (Procopius Wars 2.13.7). Others have suggested he may have returned to Athens and worked there in isolation (Alexandria has been ruled out because of its volatile political conditions). Wherever he was, his richly sourced works suggest he had access to a sizeable library. Tardieu’s further thesis, argued with great ingenuity, that Harran had a continuing presence of a Platonic school into Arabic and medieval times cannot be proven fully beyond the seventh century and has met with objections. The account of their travels by Agathias is clearly biased, and some details of the Persia episode have raised suspicion about this tale of Greek missionary zeal and Persian enlightenment. There are also three epigrams in praise of Simplicius confirming his reputation as rhetor and philosopher (180), acknowledging his elucidations of the Categories (181) and the Physics (182) of Aristotle. Finally, a distich found in a manuscript (codex Ambrosianus 306) confirms his authorship of the In Cat. and seems to have been added by a scribe as an apotropaic since he had accused the "divine Iamblichus" of inconsistency. [introduction p. 711-712] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PftkJOubxPYtz2C |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"965","_score":null,"_source":{"id":965,"authors_free":[{"id":1449,"entry_id":965,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2091,"entry_id":965,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":46,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","free_first_name":"Lloyd P.","free_last_name":"Gerson","norm_person":{"id":46,"first_name":"Lloyd P.","last_name":"Gerson","full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131525573","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius of Cilicia","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius of Cilicia"},"abstract":"The few facts we have about Simplicius\u2019 life come from his own works and a few other sources. He came from Cilicia (south-eastern Anatolia), as Agathias tells us (Hist. 2.30). He was educated by Ammonius in Alexandria (fl. 490 CE, cf. In Cael. 26.18\u201319) and Damascius (fl. 520 CE) in Athens (In Phys. 601.19). Among influential figures on his philosophical outlook are Porphyry, the learned pupil and biographer of Plotinus (245\u2013320), Iamblichus (fl. 300 CE, referred to as \"the divine Iamblichus,\" In Phys. 60.7; 639.23, etc.), and Proclus (\"the teacher of my teachers,\" In Phys. 611.11\u201312, cf. 795.4\u20135).\r\n\r\nThe expulsion of Platonists from Athens in 532 CE after Justinian\u2019s ban on pagan teaching ended school activities in 529 CE (Malalas Chronicle 18.47), the cross-references between the extant works, and the lack of evidence after 540 CE suggest that his lifespan roughly spans 480\u2013560 CE. Allusive comments in a discussion of the role of the philosopher in the city in his commentary on Epictetus (In Epict. 32.65.30\u20139 D., with reference to Plato Rep. 496d) make it probable that he wrote that commentary before the others, while still in Athens, as does his mention of the oppressive situation in Athens (ibid., epilogue). His personal note on friendship (In Epict. 87.39\u201344\/354 Hadot) indicates that he experienced help from friends who looked after his family while he was away, but we cannot establish the nature and date of this event.\r\n\r\nThere has been much debate and speculation about where he might have gone after the trip to Persia with Damascius and other colleagues (531 CE), when the hope of an ideal state under a \"philosopher-king,\" the enlightened ruler Chosroes I (Khusrau), was not fulfilled. However, the issue has not been resolved so far. The treaty of 532 with Justinian apparently had a clause added to guarantee the safety of the pagan philosophers, but it is not easy to see how guarantees could have been given. Simplicius may have stayed in Harran (i.e., Carrhae) in Syria near the border of, and inside, the Persian Empire as a safe haven for non-Christians. Tardieu (1987) has made a strong case to this effect on the basis of references to local features (rafts made of inflated animal skins typical for the Euphrates and different types of calendars found in Harran). The Harranians certainly received special treatment from Chosroes for retaining their paganism (Procopius Wars 2.13.7).\r\n\r\nOthers have suggested he may have returned to Athens and worked there in isolation (Alexandria has been ruled out because of its volatile political conditions). Wherever he was, his richly sourced works suggest he had access to a sizeable library. Tardieu\u2019s further thesis, argued with great ingenuity, that Harran had a continuing presence of a Platonic school into Arabic and medieval times cannot be proven fully beyond the seventh century and has met with objections. The account of their travels by Agathias is clearly biased, and some details of the Persia episode have raised suspicion about this tale of Greek missionary zeal and Persian enlightenment.\r\n\r\nThere are also three epigrams in praise of Simplicius confirming his reputation as rhetor and philosopher (180), acknowledging his elucidations of the Categories (181) and the Physics (182) of Aristotle. Finally, a distich found in a manuscript (codex Ambrosianus 306) confirms his authorship of the In Cat. and seems to have been added by a scribe as an apotropaic since he had accused the \"divine Iamblichus\" of inconsistency. [introduction p. 711-712]","btype":2,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PftkJOubxPYtz2C","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":46,"full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":965,"section_of":964,"pages":"711-732","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":964,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gerson2011","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2011","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2010","abstract":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity comprises over forty specially commissioned essays by experts on the philosophy of the period 200\u2013800 CE. Designed as a successor to The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (edited by A. H. Armstrong), it takes into account some forty years of scholarship since the publication of that volume. The contributors examine philosophy as it entered literature, science and religion, and offer new and extensive assessments of philosophers who until recently have been mostly ignored. The volume also includes a complete digest of all philosophical works known to have been written during this period. It will be an invaluable resource for all those interested in this rich and still emerging field. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kHhRvU7UkRlktbW","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":964,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2011]}
Title | Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2010 |
Journal | Antiquorum Philosophial |
Volume | 3 |
Pages | 121-136 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
In this paper, I have made the case for the position that Simplicius is more independent as a philosophical writer than modern scholarship has allowed. As soon as he became used as a source for Presocratic philosophy, attention was deflected from his own contributions to the philosophical debate. In broad terms, Simplicius remains loyal to his teachers, but it would be wrong to see him as a mindless copyist or a slavish collector of doxai. This means that there is room for changing our view of him. Late Platonism may have formed a united front, but this does not preclude critical reading and assessment of previous views and disagreements among themselves. I have attempted to illustrate the extent to which Simplicius found fault with and criticized his fellow Platonists and other commentators. That this was not always done by head-on confrontation may be explained by the historical situation he found himself in: firstly, he had to cope with an immensely learned and copious tradition, a task which he took on with considerable courage and resourcefulness; secondly, he was forced to choose a defensive line of argument with respect to the presentation of pagan philosophy in a world that had been taken over by Christianity. This circumstance contributed importantly to his predicament and the ensuing strategy. As I concluded in my summing up of his methodology: "In trying to defend the Platonist point of view in contradistinction to the Christian outlook, he uses polemic to persuade and refute, and comprehensive exegesis to clarify and proselytize." The extent to which he is seen to dissent would need further confirmation, but the preliminary evidence suggests that it is in proportion to the difficult balancing act forced upon him by his historical position. Philosophically, he is a seventh-generation Platonist since Plotinus taught his new doctrine, and ideologically, he finds himself "surrounded" by an increasingly hostile world. Given the sheer amount of material canvassed and processed, it is a miracle he managed to express a personal view at all. As the works stand, he does so cautiously and judiciously. In his modus operandi, he comes close to the ideal commentator outlined in In Cat. 7.23–32, with the added bonus that he offers quotations to support his arguments. A partial explanation for his "cautious" comments, offered as muted disagreement, could be that criticizing fellow Platonists too strongly might weaken one’s overall position. A final peculiarity also hints at his ability to take a more objective stance: Simplicius occasionally adopts a detached view of the Platonists, referring to them as "the Platonists do this or that," as if he were not to be counted among them. This coincides with his unusually comprehensive scope of source analysis, an approach which was bound to produce tensions and hence difficulties in presenting a unified picture of the philosophical tradition, whether it was meant to be Greek (a wide perspective) or Platonist (a narrow perspective). It can be concluded, therefore, that respect for authority can go hand in hand with criticism and dissent in Simplicius, without jeopardizing the fundamental tenets of Platonism. [conclusion p. 133] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YpEQGyC0xI7815g |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"966","_score":null,"_source":{"id":966,"authors_free":[{"id":1451,"entry_id":966,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority"},"abstract":"In this paper, I have made the case for the position that Simplicius is more independent as a philosophical writer than modern scholarship has allowed. As soon as he became used as a source for Presocratic philosophy, attention was deflected from his own contributions to the philosophical debate. In broad terms, Simplicius remains loyal to his teachers, but it would be wrong to see him as a mindless copyist or a slavish collector of doxai. This means that there is room for changing our view of him. Late Platonism may have formed a united front, but this does not preclude critical reading and assessment of previous views and disagreements among themselves. I have attempted to illustrate the extent to which Simplicius found fault with and criticized his fellow Platonists and other commentators.\r\n\r\nThat this was not always done by head-on confrontation may be explained by the historical situation he found himself in: firstly, he had to cope with an immensely learned and copious tradition, a task which he took on with considerable courage and resourcefulness; secondly, he was forced to choose a defensive line of argument with respect to the presentation of pagan philosophy in a world that had been taken over by Christianity. This circumstance contributed importantly to his predicament and the ensuing strategy. As I concluded in my summing up of his methodology: \"In trying to defend the Platonist point of view in contradistinction to the Christian outlook, he uses polemic to persuade and refute, and comprehensive exegesis to clarify and proselytize.\"\r\n\r\nThe extent to which he is seen to dissent would need further confirmation, but the preliminary evidence suggests that it is in proportion to the difficult balancing act forced upon him by his historical position. Philosophically, he is a seventh-generation Platonist since Plotinus taught his new doctrine, and ideologically, he finds himself \"surrounded\" by an increasingly hostile world. Given the sheer amount of material canvassed and processed, it is a miracle he managed to express a personal view at all. As the works stand, he does so cautiously and judiciously. In his modus operandi, he comes close to the ideal commentator outlined in In Cat. 7.23\u201332, with the added bonus that he offers quotations to support his arguments.\r\n\r\nA partial explanation for his \"cautious\" comments, offered as muted disagreement, could be that criticizing fellow Platonists too strongly might weaken one\u2019s overall position. A final peculiarity also hints at his ability to take a more objective stance: Simplicius occasionally adopts a detached view of the Platonists, referring to them as \"the Platonists do this or that,\" as if he were not to be counted among them. This coincides with his unusually comprehensive scope of source analysis, an approach which was bound to produce tensions and hence difficulties in presenting a unified picture of the philosophical tradition, whether it was meant to be Greek (a wide perspective) or Platonist (a narrow perspective).\r\n\r\nIt can be concluded, therefore, that respect for authority can go hand in hand with criticism and dissent in Simplicius, without jeopardizing the fundamental tenets of Platonism. [conclusion p. 133]","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YpEQGyC0xI7815g","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":966,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Antiquorum Philosophial","volume":"3","issue":"","pages":"121-136"}},"sort":[2010]}
Title | Priscianus of Ludia |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs |
Pages | 695-696 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Keyser, Paul T. , Irby-Massie, Georgia L. |
Translator(s) |
Neo-Platonic philosopher and colleague of Simplicius, active in Athens when Justinian’s new laws forbade pagan philosophers to teach (529 CE). Little is known about his life or his works. His contribution to scientific writing lies solely in the incomplete Metaphrasis [paraphrase] of Theophrastus' On Sense-Perception, which discusses Aristotle’s psychology from a Neo-Platonic perspective and specifically inquires into what Theophrastus contributes to the subject in his Physics (Books 4–5). Together with Themistius’ summary version of Aristotle’s On the Soul, Priscian’s Metaphrasis is a major source on Theophrastus’ psychology. Steel attributes to Priscian a commentary on Aristotle’s On the Soul, but this is still disputed. Priscian’s Solutions to King Chosroes' Scientific Questions (Solutiones eorum de quibus dubitavit Chosroes Persarum rex—only in Latin translation, CTGS. 1.2), presumably written in Persia, belongs to the problemata genre, covering—without originality—topics such as the soul, sleep, astronomy, lunar phases, the four elements, animal species, and motion. [whole text] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/DUCMT9Wxvvxb3Jq |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1263","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1263,"authors_free":[{"id":1853,"entry_id":1263,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2092,"entry_id":1263,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":45,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","free_first_name":"Paul T.","free_last_name":"Keyser","norm_person":{"id":45,"first_name":"Paul T. ","last_name":"Keyser","full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1050677153","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2093,"entry_id":1263,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":44,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","free_first_name":"Georgia L.","free_last_name":"Irby-Massie","norm_person":{"id":44,"first_name":"Georgia L.","last_name":"Irby-Massie","full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121145972","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Priscianus of Ludia","main_title":{"title":"Priscianus of Ludia"},"abstract":"Neo-Platonic philosopher and colleague of Simplicius, active in Athens when Justinian\u2019s new laws forbade pagan philosophers to teach (529 CE). Little is known about his life or his works. His contribution to scientific writing lies solely in the incomplete Metaphrasis [paraphrase] of Theophrastus' On Sense-Perception, which discusses Aristotle\u2019s psychology from a Neo-Platonic perspective and specifically inquires into what Theophrastus contributes to the subject in his Physics (Books 4\u20135).\r\n\r\nTogether with Themistius\u2019 summary version of Aristotle\u2019s On the Soul, Priscian\u2019s Metaphrasis is a major source on Theophrastus\u2019 psychology. Steel attributes to Priscian a commentary on Aristotle\u2019s On the Soul, but this is still disputed.\r\n\r\nPriscian\u2019s Solutions to King Chosroes' Scientific Questions (Solutiones eorum de quibus dubitavit Chosroes Persarum rex\u2014only in Latin translation, CTGS. 1.2), presumably written in Persia, belongs to the problemata genre, covering\u2014without originality\u2014topics such as the soul, sleep, astronomy, lunar phases, the four elements, animal species, and motion. [whole text]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DUCMT9Wxvvxb3Jq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":45,"full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":44,"full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1263,"section_of":1265,"pages":"695-696","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1265,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Keyser\/Irby-Massie2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists is the first comprehensive English language work to provide a survey of all ancient natural science, from its beginnings through the end of Late Antiquity. A team of over 100 of the world\u2019s experts in the field have compiled this Encyclopedia, including entries which are not mentioned in any other reference work \u2013 resulting in a unique and hugely ambitious resource which will prove indispensable for anyone seeking the details of the history of ancient science.\r\n\r\nAdditional features include a Glossary, Gazetteer, and Time-Line. The Glossary explains many Greek (or Latin) terms difficult to translate, whilst the Gazetteer describes the many locales from which scientists came. The Time-Line shows the rapid rise in the practice of science in the 5th century BCE and rapid decline after Hadrian, due to the centralization of Roman power, with consequent loss of a context within which science could flourish. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/up8tW1NBxVY23yX","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1265,"pubplace":"London \u2013 New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1263,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"695-696"}},"sort":[2008]}
Title | Simplicius of Kilikia |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs |
Pages | 743-745 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Keyser, Paul T. , Irby-Massie, Georgia L. |
Translator(s) |
Pupil of Damascius and Ammonius in Alexandria, Simplicius wrote several long commentaries on Aristotle’s works. Upon Justinian’s closure of the school in 529 CE, Simplicius and some colleagues fled to King Chosroes of Persia, reputed for his enlightened rule and interest in philosophy (Agathias, Histories 2.28.1 Keydell). Simplicius most probably wrote his commentaries after 532 (the location is disputed, but he must have had access to a sizeable library given the range of writers he references). He preserves important material from early sources on astronomy and mathematics (Eudemus, Eudoxus) and meteorology (Poseidonius, from Geminus’ summary) and enhances our understanding of ancient physics through Aristotle and other thinkers. With Plotinus, the focus of Platonists became increasingly otherworldly, though without fully rejecting nature. While the physical world was of secondary importance, their analysis of physics remained highly relevant. Their perspective was both religious and philosophical: a deeper understanding of, and respect for, creation was seen as a form of worshiping God and an aid to achieving their ultimate goal, the “return” to God. In explicating Aristotle’s philosophy, Neo-Platonists used commentaries as a vehicle for philosophical and scientific thought, and studying Aristotle served as preparation for studying the works of Plato within the Neo-Platonic curriculum. Simplicius paraphrases and clarifies Aristotle’s dense prose, further developing problems and themes from his own Neo-Platonic perspective, harmonizing Plato and Aristotle whenever possible. His claim that he adds little is partly a topos, partly an expression of respect and acknowledgment of belonging to a tradition; however, this does not exclude originality. On scientific issues, Simplicius believed that advances were being made (e.g., Physics Commentary, Corollary on Place: CAG 9 [1882] 625.2, cf. 795.33-35). He himself significantly altered Aristotle’s cosmological account, incorporating post-Aristotelian reactions both inside and outside the Peripatetic tradition. The rotation of the sphere of fire, for instance, is called “supernatural.” Starting from criticisms by the Peripatetic Xenarchus and a suggestion by Origen (the 3rd-century Platonizing Christian), he reinterprets Aristotle’s theory, making the fifth element (aither) influence the motion of fire, whereas Aristotle considered fire to rotate according to its natural inclination. Simplicius also refers to an objection, found in Alexander of Aphrodisias, that the rotation of transparent spheres could not explain the occasional proximity of some planets. Like his teacher Ammonius, he transformed Aristotle’s thinking-god into a creator-god (following Plato’s Timaeus). He famously polemicized against Philoponus on the eternity of the world. Contributions to the Concepts of Time and Place His most original contributions concern time and place. On place, which Aristotle regarded as a two-dimensional surface, Simplicius follows Theophrastus’ criticism, arguing for a dynamic rather than a static concept. Together with Damascius, he ascribes to place the power to arrange the parts of the world, which is viewed as an “organism” with “members.” Iamblichus had already postulated that place holds things together, giving each thing a unique position that moves with it. Simplicius and Damascius maintain that place organizes the world’s members (e.g., Corollary on Place, pp. 636.8-13, 637.25-30), but Simplicius rejects Damascius’ idea that measure—a kind of mold (tupos) into which the organism should fit—determines size and arrangement. Instead, Simplicius argues that each thing has a unique place (idios topos) that moves along with it (Corollary on Place p. 629.8-12). A second excursus (in Book 4 of the Physics Commentary: CAG 9, pp. 773-800) addresses the problem of time. Aristotle had dismissed the paradoxes regarding time’s existence, arguing that since its parts do not exist independently, time itself cannot exist. The Neo-Platonists, however, distinguished between higher and lower time, with the former being “above change” (Iamblichus). The higher kind is immune to paradox, while the lower kind is a stretch of time between two instants. Simplicius reports Damascius’ solution but only agrees that time exists as something that continuously comes into being and is divisible only in thought. In his discussion on the continuum (Physics 6), he adds his own argument: time is infinite, without beginning or end, if viewed as a cycle. Possible Medical Writings Some evidence suggests that Simplicius wrote a commentary on a Hippocratic work. The Fihrist (an Arabic bibliography) mentions a lost work, and Abu Bakr al-Razi (al-Hawi, v. 13, p. 159.9) names Simplicius as a commentator on On Fractures (Peri Agmon), known in Arabic as Kitab al-Kasr or Kitab al-Jabr (“On Setting [Bones]”). [the entire text p. 743-745] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0UokyY5QmcTIDJB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1264","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1264,"authors_free":[{"id":1854,"entry_id":1264,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2094,"entry_id":1264,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":45,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","free_first_name":"Paul T.","free_last_name":"Keyser","norm_person":{"id":45,"first_name":"Paul T. ","last_name":"Keyser","full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1050677153","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2095,"entry_id":1264,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":44,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","free_first_name":"Georgia L.","free_last_name":"Irby-Massie","norm_person":{"id":44,"first_name":"Georgia L.","last_name":"Irby-Massie","full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121145972","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius of Kilikia","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius of Kilikia"},"abstract":"Pupil of Damascius and Ammonius in Alexandria, Simplicius wrote several long commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s works. Upon Justinian\u2019s closure of the school in 529 CE, Simplicius and some colleagues fled to King Chosroes of Persia, reputed for his enlightened rule and interest in philosophy (Agathias, Histories 2.28.1 Keydell). Simplicius most probably wrote his commentaries after 532 (the location is disputed, but he must have had access to a sizeable library given the range of writers he references).\r\n\r\nHe preserves important material from early sources on astronomy and mathematics (Eudemus, Eudoxus) and meteorology (Poseidonius, from Geminus\u2019 summary) and enhances our understanding of ancient physics through Aristotle and other thinkers.\r\n\r\nWith Plotinus, the focus of Platonists became increasingly otherworldly, though without fully rejecting nature. While the physical world was of secondary importance, their analysis of physics remained highly relevant. Their perspective was both religious and philosophical: a deeper understanding of, and respect for, creation was seen as a form of worshiping God and an aid to achieving their ultimate goal, the \u201creturn\u201d to God.\r\n\r\nIn explicating Aristotle\u2019s philosophy, Neo-Platonists used commentaries as a vehicle for philosophical and scientific thought, and studying Aristotle served as preparation for studying the works of Plato within the Neo-Platonic curriculum. Simplicius paraphrases and clarifies Aristotle\u2019s dense prose, further developing problems and themes from his own Neo-Platonic perspective, harmonizing Plato and Aristotle whenever possible. His claim that he adds little is partly a topos, partly an expression of respect and acknowledgment of belonging to a tradition; however, this does not exclude originality.\r\n\r\nOn scientific issues, Simplicius believed that advances were being made (e.g., Physics Commentary, Corollary on Place: CAG 9 [1882] 625.2, cf. 795.33-35). He himself significantly altered Aristotle\u2019s cosmological account, incorporating post-Aristotelian reactions both inside and outside the Peripatetic tradition. The rotation of the sphere of fire, for instance, is called \u201csupernatural.\u201d Starting from criticisms by the Peripatetic Xenarchus and a suggestion by Origen (the 3rd-century Platonizing Christian), he reinterprets Aristotle\u2019s theory, making the fifth element (aither) influence the motion of fire, whereas Aristotle considered fire to rotate according to its natural inclination.\r\n\r\nSimplicius also refers to an objection, found in Alexander of Aphrodisias, that the rotation of transparent spheres could not explain the occasional proximity of some planets. Like his teacher Ammonius, he transformed Aristotle\u2019s thinking-god into a creator-god (following Plato\u2019s Timaeus). He famously polemicized against Philoponus on the eternity of the world.\r\nContributions to the Concepts of Time and Place\r\n\r\nHis most original contributions concern time and place. On place, which Aristotle regarded as a two-dimensional surface, Simplicius follows Theophrastus\u2019 criticism, arguing for a dynamic rather than a static concept. Together with Damascius, he ascribes to place the power to arrange the parts of the world, which is viewed as an \u201corganism\u201d with \u201cmembers.\u201d Iamblichus had already postulated that place holds things together, giving each thing a unique position that moves with it. Simplicius and Damascius maintain that place organizes the world\u2019s members (e.g., Corollary on Place, pp. 636.8-13, 637.25-30), but Simplicius rejects Damascius\u2019 idea that measure\u2014a kind of mold (tupos) into which the organism should fit\u2014determines size and arrangement. Instead, Simplicius argues that each thing has a unique place (idios topos) that moves along with it (Corollary on Place p. 629.8-12).\r\n\r\nA second excursus (in Book 4 of the Physics Commentary: CAG 9, pp. 773-800) addresses the problem of time. Aristotle had dismissed the paradoxes regarding time\u2019s existence, arguing that since its parts do not exist independently, time itself cannot exist. The Neo-Platonists, however, distinguished between higher and lower time, with the former being \u201cabove change\u201d (Iamblichus). The higher kind is immune to paradox, while the lower kind is a stretch of time between two instants. Simplicius reports Damascius\u2019 solution but only agrees that time exists as something that continuously comes into being and is divisible only in thought.\r\n\r\nIn his discussion on the continuum (Physics 6), he adds his own argument: time is infinite, without beginning or end, if viewed as a cycle.\r\nPossible Medical Writings\r\n\r\nSome evidence suggests that Simplicius wrote a commentary on a Hippocratic work. The Fihrist (an Arabic bibliography) mentions a lost work, and Abu Bakr al-Razi (al-Hawi, v. 13, p. 159.9) names Simplicius as a commentator on On Fractures (Peri Agmon), known in Arabic as Kitab al-Kasr or Kitab al-Jabr (\u201cOn Setting [Bones]\u201d). [the entire text p. 743-745]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0UokyY5QmcTIDJB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":45,"full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":44,"full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1264,"section_of":1265,"pages":"743-745","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1265,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Keyser\/Irby-Massie2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists is the first comprehensive English language work to provide a survey of all ancient natural science, from its beginnings through the end of Late Antiquity. A team of over 100 of the world\u2019s experts in the field have compiled this Encyclopedia, including entries which are not mentioned in any other reference work \u2013 resulting in a unique and hugely ambitious resource which will prove indispensable for anyone seeking the details of the history of ancient science.\r\n\r\nAdditional features include a Glossary, Gazetteer, and Time-Line. The Glossary explains many Greek (or Latin) terms difficult to translate, whilst the Gazetteer describes the many locales from which scientists came. The Time-Line shows the rapid rise in the practice of science in the 5th century BCE and rapid decline after Hadrian, due to the centralization of Roman power, with consequent loss of a context within which science could flourish. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/up8tW1NBxVY23yX","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1265,"pubplace":"London \u2013 New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1264,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"743-745"}},"sort":[2008]}
Title | Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator |
Type | Monograph |
Language | English |
Date | 2008 |
Publication Place | London |
Publisher | Duckworth |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
This is the first book-length study in English of the interpretative and philosophical approach of the commentaries of Simplicius of Cilicia (c. AD 530). Simplicius' work, marked by doctrinal complexity and scholarship, is unusually self-conscious, learned and rich in its sources, and he is therefore one of those rare authors who is of interest to ancient philosophers, historians and classicists alike. Here, Han Baltussen argues that our understanding of Simplicius' methodology will be greatly enhanced if we study how his scholarly approach impacts on his philosophical exegesis. His commentaries are placed in their intellectual context and several case studies shed light on his critical treatment of earlier philosophers and his often polemical use of previous commentaries. "Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius" not only clarifies the objectives, pre-suppositions and impact of Simplicius' work, but also illustrates how, as a competent philosopher explicating Aristotelian and Platonic ideas, he continues and develops a method that pursues philosophy by way of exegetical engagement with earlier thinkers and commentators. The investigation opens up connections with broader issues, such as the reception of Presocratic philosophy within the commentary tradition, the nature and purpose of his commentaries, and the demise of pagan philosophy. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6fusW1GpgUp9w7O |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"226","_score":null,"_source":{"id":226,"authors_free":[{"id":288,"entry_id":226,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator"},"abstract":"This is the first book-length study in English of the interpretative and philosophical approach of the commentaries of Simplicius of Cilicia (c. AD 530). Simplicius' work, marked by doctrinal complexity and scholarship, is unusually self-conscious, learned and rich in its sources, and he is therefore one of those rare authors who is of interest to ancient philosophers, historians and classicists alike. Here, Han Baltussen argues that our understanding of Simplicius' methodology will be greatly enhanced if we study how his scholarly approach impacts on his philosophical exegesis. His commentaries are placed in their intellectual context and several case studies shed light on his critical treatment of earlier philosophers and his often polemical use of previous commentaries. \"Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius\" not only clarifies the objectives, pre-suppositions and impact of Simplicius' work, but also illustrates how, as a competent philosopher explicating Aristotelian and Platonic ideas, he continues and develops a method that pursues philosophy by way of exegetical engagement with earlier thinkers and commentators. The investigation opens up connections with broader issues, such as the reception of Presocratic philosophy within the commentary tradition, the nature and purpose of his commentaries, and the demise of pagan philosophy.","btype":1,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6fusW1GpgUp9w7O","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":226,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2008]}
Title | From Polemic to Exegesis: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2007 |
Journal | Poetics Today |
Volume | 28 |
Issue | 2 |
Pages | 247–281 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Commentary was an important vehicle for philosophical debate in late antiquity. Its antecedents lie in the rise of rational argumentation, polemical rivalry, literacy, and the canonization of texts. This essay aims to give a historical and typological outline of philosophical exegesis in antiquity, from the earliest allegorizing readings of Homer to the full-blown “running commentary” in the Platonic tradition (fourth to sixth centuries CE). Running commentaries are mostly on authoritative thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle. Yet they are never mere scholarly enterprises but, rather, springboards for syncretistic clarification, elaboration, and creative interpretation. Two case studies (Galen 129-219 CE, Simplicius ca. 530 CE) will illustrate the range of exegetical tools available at the end of a long tradition in medical science and in reading Aristotle through Neoplatonic eyes, respectively. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9evl1bXvfOTYX0r |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"968","_score":null,"_source":{"id":968,"authors_free":[{"id":1455,"entry_id":968,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"From Polemic to Exegesis: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary","main_title":{"title":"From Polemic to Exegesis: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary"},"abstract":"Commentary was an important vehicle for philosophical debate in late antiquity. Its antecedents lie in the rise of rational argumentation, polemical rivalry, literacy, and the canonization of texts. This essay aims to give a historical and typological outline of philosophical exegesis in antiquity, from the earliest alle\u00adgorizing readings of Homer to the full-blown \u201crunning commentary\u201d in the Pla\u00adtonic tradition (fourth to sixth centuries CE). Running commentaries are mostly on authoritative thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle. Yet they are never mere scholarly enterprises but, rather, springboards for syncretistic clarification, elaboration, and creative interpretation. Two case studies (Galen 129-219 CE, Simplicius ca. 530 CE) will illustrate the range of exegetical tools available at the end of a long tradition in medical science and in reading Aristotle through Neoplatonic eyes, respectively. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9evl1bXvfOTYX0r","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":968,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Poetics Today","volume":"28","issue":"2","pages":"247\u2013281"}},"sort":[2007]}
Title | Addenda Eudemea |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2006 |
Journal | Leeds International Classical Studies |
Volume | 5 |
Issue | 1 |
Pages | 1-28 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
This paper presents 16 fragments of the Peripatetic philosopher Eudemus (c. 350-290 BC), which were not printed in the (still) standard edition of Wehrli (1955; revised 1969), but which had been signalled in passing by De Lacy (1957) and Gottschalk (1973). The aim is to provide a text with translation and brief annotation, to be included in a future edition, and to argue that context can add to our understanding of these passages. Their importance lies in bringing greater comprehensiveness to the collection, offering at least five additional (near) quotations, and illustrating the new trend in fragment studies to contextualize fragments on several levels in order to gain further insight into their value and reception. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/HRE0ldIrfqIxrEE |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1119","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1119,"authors_free":[{"id":1692,"entry_id":1119,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Addenda Eudemea","main_title":{"title":"Addenda Eudemea"},"abstract":"This paper presents 16 fragments of the Peripatetic philosopher Eudemus (c. 350-290 BC), which were not printed in the (still) standard edition of Wehrli (1955; revised 1969), but which had been signalled in passing by De Lacy (1957) and Gottschalk (1973). The aim is to provide a text with translation and brief annotation, to be included in a future edition, and to argue that context can add to our understanding of these passages. Their importance lies in bringing greater comprehensiveness to the collection, offering at least five additional (near) quotations, and illustrating the new trend in fragment studies to contextualize fragments on several levels in order to gain further insight into their value and reception. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HRE0ldIrfqIxrEE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1119,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Leeds International Classical Studies","volume":"5","issue":"1","pages":"1-28"}},"sort":[2006]}
Title | The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Journal | Studia Humaniora Tartuensia |
Volume | 6 |
Issue | 6 |
Pages | 1-26 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
In this paper I present a synthetic overview of recent and ongoing research in the field of doxography, that is, the study of the nature, transmission and interrelations of sources for ancient Greek philosophy. The latest revisions of the theory of Hermann Diels (Doxographi Graeci 1879) regarding the historiography ought to be known more widely, as they still influence our understanding of the Presocratics and their reception. The scholarly study on the compilations of Greek philosophical views from Hellenistic and later periods has received a major boost by the first of a projected three-volume study by Mansfeld and Runia (1997). Taking their work as a firm basis I also describe my own work in this area and how it can be related to, and fitted into, this trend by outlining how two important sources for the historiography of Greek philosophy, Theo-phrastus (4th–3rd c. BCE) and Simplicius (early 6th c. AD) stand in a special relation to each other and form an important strand in the doxographical tradition. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/OYlxoMJYDjcTIPa |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1201","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1201,"authors_free":[{"id":1774,"entry_id":1201,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research","main_title":{"title":"The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research"},"abstract":"In this paper I present a synthetic overview of recent and ongoing research in the field of doxography, that is, the study of the nature, transmission and interrelations of sources for ancient Greek philosophy. The latest revisions of the theory of Hermann Diels (Doxographi Graeci 1879) regarding the historiography ought to be known more widely, as they still influence our understanding of the Presocratics and their reception. The scholarly study on the compilations of Greek philosophical views from Hellenistic and later periods has received a major boost by the first of a projected three-volume study by Mansfeld and Runia (1997). Taking their work as a firm basis I also describe my own work in this area and how it can be related to, and fitted into, this trend by outlining how two important sources for the historiography of Greek philosophy, Theo-phrastus (4th\u20133rd c. BCE) and Simplicius (early 6th c. AD) stand in a special relation to each other and form an important strand in the doxographical tradition. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OYlxoMJYDjcTIPa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1201,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studia Humaniora Tartuensia","volume":"6","issue":"6","pages":"1-26"}},"sort":[2005]}
Title | The κοινη αισθεσις in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 163-174 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Lautner, Peter |
Editor(s) | Stone, Martin W. F. , Baltussen, Han , Adamson, Peter |
Translator(s) |
I think we can draw the conclusion that, for the commentator, it is the more formal character of the koinê aisthêsis that makes it capable of performing all the tasks that were assigned to it by Aristotle. Pseudo-Simplicius justified this claim by appealing to distinctly Neoplatonic doctrines, such as the formal structure of perceptual judgment: the koinê aisthêsis operates by being present to each particular sense in respect of what they have in common with each other. Again, this is not to posit a sixth sense; the koinê aisthêsis and the particular senses are not different entities. In other words, they are not different faculties, only different activities of the same perceptual system. We can still speak of superiority here, but only superiority in terms of functional priority. That we are not dealing with distinct capacities is well demonstrated by the commentator at 196.4 ff. He claims that the koinê aisthêsis can also perceive color, but only by virtue of sight, just as it can perceive flavor only by virtue of taste. If the koinê aisthêsis and sight were wholly distinct, then we would fall back into the aporia that both Aristotle and Pseudo-Simplicius wished to avoid. The perceptual system as such, or the more formal structure of the whole perceptual system, can grasp the common sensibles, apprehend its own working, and discriminate different sense-objects by an instantaneous act of comprehension. It seems that the koinê aisthêsis emerges as a new activity on the basis of the particular senses. The commentator’s remarks at 196.29-30 corroborate this assumption. On explaining Aristotle’s thesis (De anima 426b10) that the koinê aisthêsis judges the differences in the underlying sense-objects, Pseudo-Simplicius notes that the koinê aisthêsis apprehends all sensory contraries such as white and black, rough and smooth, and does so by transcending them. This does not mean that koinê aisthêsis is transcendent, only that it is further away from the sensible objects. It is prior to the multitude of the particular senses and works together with all of them. This priority is not necessarily temporal; indeed, it is more likely causal, where causality does not imply a relation between two different entities—he may have in mind the relation of the whole to its parts. In any case, we have already seen that the koinê aisthêsis cannot be a cause that exists independently of the particular senses. Our comparison of the views of Proclus and Pseudo-Simplicius on the koinê aisthêsis has yielded two important points. First, the two disagree about the status of the koinê aisthêsis. While Proclus seems to assume that it differs from the particular senses, Pseudo-Simplicius clearly denies that and, under the influence of Alexander of Aphrodisias, claims that there is no sixth sense to perform those functions that were traditionally attributed to the koinê aisthêsis. Proclus’ arguments for his position are not clear from the extant corpus, but those put forward by Pseudo-Simplicius are overwhelmingly Neoplatonic, not Peripatetic. Second, they also disagree about which capacity is responsible for perceptual awareness. Their disagreement is deeply rooted in their respective notions of the human soul. While Pseudo-Simplicius places perceptual awareness firmly within the scope of the perceptual system, Proclus felt the need to postulate a distinct capacity in the rational soul whose role is to be aware of every psychic activity. The difference left its mark on their discussion of the various functions of our perceptual capacities. But the divergence in their vision of the human soul is all the more interesting insofar as they are said to have held much the same views on metaphysics. [conclusion p. 172-173] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4LJXmhF8cXPYjb4 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1193","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1193,"authors_free":[{"id":1764,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":236,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lautner, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Lautner","norm_person":{"id":236,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Lautner","full_name":"Lautner, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1157740766","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2064,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2065,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2066,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius"},"abstract":"I think we can draw the conclusion that, for the commentator, it is the more formal character of the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis that makes it capable of performing all the tasks that were assigned to it by Aristotle. Pseudo-Simplicius justified this claim by appealing to distinctly Neoplatonic doctrines, such as the formal structure of perceptual judgment: the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis operates by being present to each particular sense in respect of what they have in common with each other. Again, this is not to posit a sixth sense; the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis and the particular senses are not different entities. In other words, they are not different faculties, only different activities of the same perceptual system. We can still speak of superiority here, but only superiority in terms of functional priority.\r\n\r\nThat we are not dealing with distinct capacities is well demonstrated by the commentator at 196.4 ff. He claims that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis can also perceive color, but only by virtue of sight, just as it can perceive flavor only by virtue of taste. If the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis and sight were wholly distinct, then we would fall back into the aporia that both Aristotle and Pseudo-Simplicius wished to avoid. The perceptual system as such, or the more formal structure of the whole perceptual system, can grasp the common sensibles, apprehend its own working, and discriminate different sense-objects by an instantaneous act of comprehension.\r\n\r\nIt seems that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis emerges as a new activity on the basis of the particular senses. The commentator\u2019s remarks at 196.29-30 corroborate this assumption. On explaining Aristotle\u2019s thesis (De anima 426b10) that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis judges the differences in the underlying sense-objects, Pseudo-Simplicius notes that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis apprehends all sensory contraries such as white and black, rough and smooth, and does so by transcending them. This does not mean that koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis is transcendent, only that it is further away from the sensible objects. It is prior to the multitude of the particular senses and works together with all of them.\r\n\r\nThis priority is not necessarily temporal; indeed, it is more likely causal, where causality does not imply a relation between two different entities\u2014he may have in mind the relation of the whole to its parts. In any case, we have already seen that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis cannot be a cause that exists independently of the particular senses.\r\n\r\nOur comparison of the views of Proclus and Pseudo-Simplicius on the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis has yielded two important points. First, the two disagree about the status of the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis. While Proclus seems to assume that it differs from the particular senses, Pseudo-Simplicius clearly denies that and, under the influence of Alexander of Aphrodisias, claims that there is no sixth sense to perform those functions that were traditionally attributed to the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis. Proclus\u2019 arguments for his position are not clear from the extant corpus, but those put forward by Pseudo-Simplicius are overwhelmingly Neoplatonic, not Peripatetic.\r\n\r\nSecond, they also disagree about which capacity is responsible for perceptual awareness. Their disagreement is deeply rooted in their respective notions of the human soul. While Pseudo-Simplicius places perceptual awareness firmly within the scope of the perceptual system, Proclus felt the need to postulate a distinct capacity in the rational soul whose role is to be aware of every psychic activity. The difference left its mark on their discussion of the various functions of our perceptual capacities. But the divergence in their vision of the human soul is all the more interesting insofar as they are said to have held much the same views on metaphysics. [conclusion p. 172-173]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4LJXmhF8cXPYjb4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":236,"full_name":"Lautner, Peter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1193,"section_of":233,"pages":"163-174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}
Title | Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 37-50 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Betegh, Gábor |
Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
Translator(s) |
The text of the Derveni papyrus has often been labeled ‘a commentary’, or a hypomnema and its unidentified author has habitually been called ‘the Derveni commentator.’ The roll, which was found among the remains of the funeral pyre of a Macedonian tomb, has been dated to the last third of the fourth century BC on the basis of the archeological evidence. Moreover, there is an overriding consensus among scholars that the text was composed sometime around the end of the Presocratic period.1 Given this early dating of the text, it appears to be most significant for our knowledge of the early, pre-Hellenistic phase of the commentary tradition. Indeed, if both the dating and the above characterization is correct, the Derveni text is probably the earliest surviving specimen of this genre, and certainly the earliest document providing first-hand evidence of sufficient length for direct textual analysis.Alas, things with the Derveni papyrus are never so clear-cut. Most importantly, it is not entirely evident whether it is legitimate to call the whole text a ‘commentary’ at all, and, if so, with what qualifications. This is the basic question that I shall try to examine in this paper. I shall tackle the issue by breaking it down into two, more or less independent, sets of problems. The first of the two is largely formal and relatively simple. It amounts to asking whether or not the Derveni text, or more precisely what has survived of it, conforms with certain formal and structural features that we normally expect from a commentary. The second set of problems is considerably more complex. To put it bluntly, I shall ask why the Derveni author set out in the first place to interpret the object of his exegesis. This question thus pertains to both the author’s cognitive and pragmatic attitude towards the object of his interpretative enterprise, and, closely related to these, to the specific cultural and sociological context in which the author pursues his exegesis. It is also in this second part that I shall try to present a sympathetic rendering of the so-called ‘allegorical’ method of the Derveni author. [Introduction, p. 37] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pNaYfVx1t4ULvdc |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1007","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1007,"authors_free":[{"id":1516,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":398,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","free_first_name":"G\u00e1bor","free_last_name":"Betegh","norm_person":{"id":398,"first_name":"G\u00e1bor","last_name":"Betegh","full_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140805044","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2329,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2330,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2331,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus","main_title":{"title":"Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus"},"abstract":"The text of the Derveni papyrus has often been labeled \u2018a commentary\u2019, or a hypomnema \r\nand its unidentified author has habitually been called \u2018the Derveni commentator.\u2019 The roll, \r\nwhich was found among the remains of the funeral pyre of a Macedonian tomb, has been \r\ndated to the last third of the fourth century BC on the basis of the archeological evidence. \r\nMoreover, there is an overriding consensus among scholars that the text was composed \r\nsometime around the end of the Presocratic period.1 Given this early dating of the text, it \r\nappears to be most significant for our knowledge of the early, pre-Hellenistic phase of the \r\ncommentary tradition. Indeed, if both the dating and the above characterization is correct, \r\nthe Derveni text is probably the earliest surviving specimen of this genre, and certainly the \r\nearliest document providing first-hand evidence of sufficient length for direct textual \r\nanalysis.Alas, things with the Derveni papyrus are never so clear-cut. Most importantly, it is not \r\nentirely evident whether it is legitimate to call the whole text a \u2018commentary\u2019 at all, and, if \r\nso, with what qualifications. This is the basic question that I shall try to examine in this \r\npaper. I shall tackle the issue by breaking it down into two, more or less independent, sets \r\nof problems. The first of the two is largely formal and relatively simple. It amounts to \r\nasking whether or not the Derveni text, or more precisely what has survived of it, \r\nconforms with certain formal and structural features that we normally expect from a \r\ncommentary. The second set of problems is considerably more complex. To put it bluntly, \r\nI shall ask why the Derveni author set out in the first place to interpret the object of his \r\nexegesis. This question thus pertains to both the author\u2019s cognitive and pragmatic attitude \r\ntowards the object of his interpretative enterprise, and, closely related to these, to the \r\nspecific cultural and sociological context in which the author pursues his exegesis. It is \r\nalso in this second part that I shall try to present a sympathetic rendering of the so-called \r\n\u2018allegorical\u2019 method of the Derveni author. [Introduction, p. 37]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pNaYfVx1t4ULvdc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":398,"full_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1007,"section_of":233,"pages":"37-50","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1007,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries","volume":"38","issue":"1","pages":"37-50"}},"sort":[2004]}
Title | The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 239-268 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sellars, J. T. |
Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
Translator(s) |
In what follows I offer a bibliographical guide to the ancient commentators on Aristotle, outlining where one may find texts, translations, studies, and more detailed bibliographies containing further references.* It is designed to supplement the existing bibliography in: [l] R. Sorabji, ed., Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence (London: Duckworth, 1990), 485-524. The focus here is on the ancient commentators, but reference will also be made to Byzantine commentators. For a list of around 300 commentators on Aristotle - ancient, Byzantine, Islamic, medieval, and renaissance - see the final pages of [ 2 ] Operum Aristotelis Stagiritae Philosophorum Omnium, ed. I Casaubon (Lugduni, apud Guillelmum Laemarium, 1590). This list is followed by a detailed inventory of individual commentaries arranged by the Aristotelian text upon which they comment. This very useful second list is reprinted in: [3] Aristotelis Opera Omnia quae extant Uno Volumine Comprehensa, ed. C. H. Weise (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1843), 1013-18. Note also the more recent list of ancient commentaries by R. Goulet in D P h A 1,437-41 (1993), now supplemented by M. Chase in DPhA Suppl., 113-21 (2003). [Introduction, p. 239] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RVqUywkJKyTkd5z |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1029","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1029,"authors_free":[{"id":1555,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":299,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sellars, J. T.","free_first_name":"J. T.","free_last_name":"Sellars","norm_person":{"id":299,"first_name":"J. T.","last_name":"Sellars","full_name":"Sellars, J. T.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1011826046","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1556,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1557,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1558,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide","main_title":{"title":"The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide"},"abstract":"In what follows I offer a bibliographical guide to the ancient commentators on Aristotle, \r\noutlining where one may find texts, translations, studies, and more detailed bibliographies \r\ncontaining further references.* It is designed to supplement the existing bibliography in: \r\n[l] R. Sorabji, ed., Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence \r\n(London: Duckworth, 1990), 485-524. \r\nThe focus here is on the ancient commentators, but reference will also be made to \r\nByzantine commentators. For a list of around 300 commentators on Aristotle - ancient, \r\nByzantine, Islamic, medieval, and renaissance - see the final pages of [ 2 ] Operum \r\nAristotelis Stagiritae Philosophorum Omnium, ed. I Casaubon (Lugduni, apud \r\nGuillelmum Laemarium, 1590). This list is followed by a detailed inventory of individual \r\ncommentaries arranged by the Aristotelian text upon which they comment. This very \r\nuseful second list is reprinted in: [3] Aristotelis Opera Omnia quae extant Uno Volumine \r\nComprehensa, ed. C. H. Weise (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1843), 1013-18. Note also the more \r\nrecent list of ancient commentaries by R. Goulet in D P h A 1,437-41 (1993), now \r\nsupplemented by M. Chase in DPhA Suppl., 113-21 (2003). [Introduction, p. 239]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RVqUywkJKyTkd5z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":299,"full_name":"Sellars, J. T.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1029,"section_of":233,"pages":"239-268","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}
Title | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Publication Place | London |
Publisher | Institute of Classical Studies |
Series | Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS) |
Volume | Supplement 83.1 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
Translator(s) |
This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji’s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nqTHgI2QahbENt5 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"233","_score":null,"_source":{"id":233,"authors_free":[{"id":297,"entry_id":233,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":298,"entry_id":233,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":299,"entry_id":233,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","main_title":{"title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1"},"abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","btype":4,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2004]}
Title | Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 1-19 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Fazzo, Silvia |
Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
Translator(s) |
[Conclusion, p. 14]: We have seen that it was only in the twentieth century, after the two World Wars, that the study of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca began to come into its own as a field of research.44 Among the first to make profitable use of the CAG were those Orientalists, chiefly from Germany, who were interested in Greek-Arabic connections and translations. In the case of Alexander, the availability of critical editions of the texts made it possible to identify the Greek counterparts of many short pieces transmitted in Arabic under his name but with titles different from those familiar to us. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MKWHuyZ1jyOKcwR |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"552","_score":null,"_source":{"id":552,"authors_free":[{"id":778,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":77,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","free_first_name":"Silvia","free_last_name":"Fazzo","norm_person":{"id":77,"first_name":"Silvia","last_name":"Fazzo","full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2100,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2101,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2102,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition"},"abstract":"[Conclusion, p. 14]: We have seen that it was only in the twentieth century, after the two World Wars, that the \r\nstudy of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca began to come into its own as a field of \r\nresearch.44 Among the first to make profitable use of the CAG were those Orientalists, \r\nchiefly from Germany, who were interested in Greek-Arabic connections and translations. \r\nIn the case of Alexander, the availability of critical editions of the texts made it possible to \r\nidentify the Greek counterparts of many short pieces transmitted in Arabic under his name \r\nbut with titles different from those familiar to us.","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MKWHuyZ1jyOKcwR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":77,"full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":552,"section_of":233,"pages":"1-19","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}
Title | Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 97-120 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Karamanolis, George |
Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
Translator(s) |
From the foregoing discussion, it emerges, I hope, that Porphyry was inspired by a certain ideology regarding Aristotle’s philosophy. This ideology, which I have tried to outline, is quite central to Porphyry’s overall philosophical profile. It stems from a set of interpretations of some of Aristotle’s central doctrines, which show Aristotle to be in agreement with Plato’s philosophy, despite some differences or even objections on Aristotle’s part. We can find these interpretations in his extant work, but probably they were fully spelled out in some of his lost works, such as in his On Plato and Aristotle belonging to the same school of thought (Suda s.v. Porphyry) or in his On the difference between Plato and Aristotle (Elias in Porphyrii Isag. 39.7-8). There is little reason to think that the titles of the two works represent two contradictory Porphyrian positions about the relation between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, as has often been argued, and still less that they may stand for one work. For, as has been seen, Porphyry did not deny the existence of differences between Plato and Aristotle; rather, he appears to have argued that these were not as dramatic as had been thought by Platonists and Peripatetics alike. In Porphyry’s interpretation, as has been reconstructed above, Aristotle’s philosophy was close to and complementary with Plato’s doctrine: Aristotle’s logic, though not Platonic, is considered to be compatible and complementary with Platonic philosophy, while Aristotle’s ontology is deemed similar to that of Plato’s. Such an interpretation of Aristotle commands commitment to at least some parts of his philosophy. This feature distinguishes Porphyry from the entire previous Platonist tradition. It is this that motivates him to recommend Aristotle’s philosophy to fellow Platonists as a philosophically valuable one through the writing of detailed commentaries in the manner of Peripatetics like Andronicus, Aspasius, and Alexander. In fact, as has been suggested above, Porphyry was much influenced by their interpretations of Aristotle’s thought. But he also distanced himself from them, because he wrote for a different readership with different expectations and philosophical views. Porphyry’s commentaries were specifically written for Platonists, who were urged to understand that, given a certain interpretation of Aristotle, not only can Aristotle be studied along with Plato, but that this study is in fact so philosophically important as to become indispensable for a Platonist. If Platonists after Porphyry kept writing commentaries on Aristotle, often drawing extensively on Porphyry’s own work, they did this because they largely accepted Porphyry’s position on Aristotle’s philosophy. This does not mean that they always agreed with him. But it is surely Porphyry who set the agenda for the discussion of Aristotle’s philosophy by the later Platonists. [conclusion p. 118-119] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PKJkoGjXKCovNlB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1362","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1362,"authors_free":[{"id":2038,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":207,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karamanolis, George","free_first_name":"George","free_last_name":"Karamanolis","norm_person":{"id":207,"first_name":"George","last_name":"Karamanolis","full_name":"Karamanolis, George","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129979007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2399,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2400,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2401,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle"},"abstract":"From the foregoing discussion, it emerges, I hope, that Porphyry was inspired by a certain ideology regarding Aristotle\u2019s philosophy. This ideology, which I have tried to outline, is quite central to Porphyry\u2019s overall philosophical profile. It stems from a set of interpretations of some of Aristotle\u2019s central doctrines, which show Aristotle to be in agreement with Plato\u2019s philosophy, despite some differences or even objections on Aristotle\u2019s part. We can find these interpretations in his extant work, but probably they were fully spelled out in some of his lost works, such as in his On Plato and Aristotle belonging to the same school of thought (Suda s.v. Porphyry) or in his On the difference between Plato and Aristotle (Elias in Porphyrii Isag. 39.7-8).\r\n\r\nThere is little reason to think that the titles of the two works represent two contradictory Porphyrian positions about the relation between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, as has often been argued, and still less that they may stand for one work. For, as has been seen, Porphyry did not deny the existence of differences between Plato and Aristotle; rather, he appears to have argued that these were not as dramatic as had been thought by Platonists and Peripatetics alike.\r\n\r\nIn Porphyry\u2019s interpretation, as has been reconstructed above, Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was close to and complementary with Plato\u2019s doctrine: Aristotle\u2019s logic, though not Platonic, is considered to be compatible and complementary with Platonic philosophy, while Aristotle\u2019s ontology is deemed similar to that of Plato\u2019s. Such an interpretation of Aristotle commands commitment to at least some parts of his philosophy. This feature distinguishes Porphyry from the entire previous Platonist tradition. It is this that motivates him to recommend Aristotle\u2019s philosophy to fellow Platonists as a philosophically valuable one through the writing of detailed commentaries in the manner of Peripatetics like Andronicus, Aspasius, and Alexander.\r\n\r\nIn fact, as has been suggested above, Porphyry was much influenced by their interpretations of Aristotle\u2019s thought. But he also distanced himself from them, because he wrote for a different readership with different expectations and philosophical views. Porphyry\u2019s commentaries were specifically written for Platonists, who were urged to understand that, given a certain interpretation of Aristotle, not only can Aristotle be studied along with Plato, but that this study is in fact so philosophically important as to become indispensable for a Platonist.\r\n\r\nIf Platonists after Porphyry kept writing commentaries on Aristotle, often drawing extensively on Porphyry\u2019s own work, they did this because they largely accepted Porphyry\u2019s position on Aristotle\u2019s philosophy. This does not mean that they always agreed with him. But it is surely Porphyry who set the agenda for the discussion of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy by the later Platonists. [conclusion p. 118-119]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PKJkoGjXKCovNlB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":207,"full_name":"Karamanolis, George","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1362,"section_of":233,"pages":"97-120","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2004]}
Title | Early Reactions to Plato’s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2003 |
Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
Pages | 49-71 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
Translator(s) |
We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato’s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus. My perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the "commentary tradition." Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions—e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is—would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as "what is a commentary?", "what form did the interpretation of texts take?", or "when do commentaries emerge?") require a fresh look. The "prehistory" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century "commentary," Edward Hussey already points out that "DP’s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making." The two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus—as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective. The ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus’ work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, "reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus’ works were so closely associated with Aristotle’s that his works became mixed up with his master’s. In late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters. Some twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity. I should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the "pre-history" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rECjmb8p0bsRQza |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"971","_score":null,"_source":{"id":971,"authors_free":[{"id":1462,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2351,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2352,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus","main_title":{"title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus"},"abstract":"We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato\u2019s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus.\r\n\r\nMy perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the \"commentary tradition.\" Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions\u2014e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is\u2014would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as \"what is a commentary?\", \"what form did the interpretation of texts take?\", or \"when do commentaries emerge?\") require a fresh look.\r\n\r\nThe \"prehistory\" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century \"commentary,\" Edward Hussey already points out that \"DP\u2019s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making.\"\r\n\r\nThe two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus\u2014as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective.\r\n\r\nThe ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus\u2019 work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, \"reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day\"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus\u2019 works were so closely associated with Aristotle\u2019s that his works became mixed up with his master\u2019s.\r\n\r\nIn late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters.\r\n\r\nSome twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity.\r\n\r\nI should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the \"pre-history\" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rECjmb8p0bsRQza","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":971,"section_of":157,"pages":"49-71","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2003]}
Title | Wehrli’s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius’ Commentary On Aristotle’s Physics |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Eudemus of Rhodes |
Pages | 127-156 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Bodnár, István M. |
Translator(s) |
In this paper, I have provided significant reasons why more work is needed on the material found in Wehrli’s edition of Eudemus of Rhodes (§§1-2, with particular reference to his fragments on physics). I have briefly discussed preliminary questions for a new edition, such as what type of work Eudemus’ Physika was and in what form Simplicius may have consulted it (§3). In addition, I presented twelve additional passages or closing lines to existing testimonia from Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, bringing the total number of named references to Eudemus in Simplicius to around 130. On the basis of the material studied, we can conclude that the added texts do not produce new insights of major importance, as the material is limited and taken from the same source as most of the known texts. However, even if the shorter references (T1–6) should mainly be added to our collection for the sake of completeness, they may also serve as evidence that Simplicius was reading Eudemus’ notes alongside Aristotle’s text. The brevity of such references, it could be argued, shows Simplicius on the lookout for useful comments and adding them whenever they occur. Some of the closing statements, which go beyond the actual quotations, teach us more about Simplicius’ method of demarcating or "bracketing" his quotes and draw attention to certain features of Eudemus’ approach (T2-3, 5, 7). Moreover, we found a few details that further clarify aspects of Eudemus’ role and method in the exegetical tradition. For instance, in T1, Simplicius formulates objections against both Eudemus and Alexander, whereas he usually prefers the former to the latter. In T2 and T7, Eudemus’ importance in clarifying a problem is noted. Obviously, we are here adopting a broader approach toward the study of fragments than has been customary until fairly recently. The longer passages (T7–12) yielded five recurrent "quotations," or at least passages supposedly reporting Eudemus’ words (apart from paratitheatai, I noted verbs such as prographēin, legein). Since they confirm information in similar quotations (e.g., his discussion of Being [T8], of Parmenides [T9], of predication [T10], and on his method regarding Aristotle’s arguments [T12]), it was argued that they should at least be taken into account instead of suppressed or hidden away. The duplication of material can, in itself, be informative about the value of it for our assessment of the surviving material. Finally, I suggested that a probable reason for the transmission of Eudemian material was its value as an exegetical aid to ancient commentators. Simplicius almost treats Eudemus as a "colleague" who also aimed at clarifying Aristotle’s difficult prose (see quote from Wehrli, above, note 18). The higher ratio of references compared to Theophrastus seems to indicate that Eudemus’ clarifications of Aristotle’s thought in physics were regarded as more useful and therefore found their way into later exegetical writings. Blumenthal (p. 10) has expressed the paradox well: "The general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters." Perhaps Simplicius found Eudemus useful as a cure for Aristotle’s unclarity; this would explain the emphasis he puts on Eudemus’ clarity (note the frequency of saphēs) as against Aristotle’s—supposedly intended—obscurity (asapheia, see esp. In Cat. 7.1–22). The unhelpful handling of a small number of references discussed above is only one of several reasons to re-evaluate the method and form of Wehrli’s edition today. We have become more aware than ever that editing fragments is not a cut-and-paste operation but a difficult and complex exercise that needs to take several contexts into account. In this particular case, editing passages as fragmentary bits of text lifted out of their context is perhaps impossible in the tradition in which Simplicius’ prose often does not allow us to lift a text out of its context without losing important information regarding the motives, intentions, and overall argument of the source author. As soon as the thoughts and words of a cited author become deeply embedded in the fabric of the immediate context, we need to be as well-informed as possible about the source author. There are many unpredictable contingencies in the transmission of earlier thought, and common-sense tactics such as leaving out "redundant" duplicate passages may backfire. Therefore, it makes sense for each case to be tested on its own merits. These considerations show Wehrli’s edition to be the product of an outdated method, and it is hoped that this essay, together with the obiter dicta culled from reviews (see appendices), will be of use to the next editor of the Eudemian fragments in physics. [conclusion p. 146-149] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nQEtetEDiyq3flk |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"972","_score":null,"_source":{"id":972,"authors_free":[{"id":1465,"entry_id":972,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1466,"entry_id":972,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1467,"entry_id":972,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Wehrli\u2019s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius\u2019 Commentary On Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"Wehrli\u2019s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius\u2019 Commentary On Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"In this paper, I have provided significant reasons why more work is needed on the material found in Wehrli\u2019s edition of Eudemus of Rhodes (\u00a7\u00a71-2, with particular reference to his fragments on physics). I have briefly discussed preliminary questions for a new edition, such as what type of work Eudemus\u2019 Physika was and in what form Simplicius may have consulted it (\u00a73). In addition, I presented twelve additional passages or closing lines to existing testimonia from Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, bringing the total number of named references to Eudemus in Simplicius to around 130.\r\n\r\nOn the basis of the material studied, we can conclude that the added texts do not produce new insights of major importance, as the material is limited and taken from the same source as most of the known texts. However, even if the shorter references (T1\u20136) should mainly be added to our collection for the sake of completeness, they may also serve as evidence that Simplicius was reading Eudemus\u2019 notes alongside Aristotle\u2019s text. The brevity of such references, it could be argued, shows Simplicius on the lookout for useful comments and adding them whenever they occur. Some of the closing statements, which go beyond the actual quotations, teach us more about Simplicius\u2019 method of demarcating or \"bracketing\" his quotes and draw attention to certain features of Eudemus\u2019 approach (T2-3, 5, 7). Moreover, we found a few details that further clarify aspects of Eudemus\u2019 role and method in the exegetical tradition. For instance, in T1, Simplicius formulates objections against both Eudemus and Alexander, whereas he usually prefers the former to the latter. In T2 and T7, Eudemus\u2019 importance in clarifying a problem is noted.\r\n\r\nObviously, we are here adopting a broader approach toward the study of fragments than has been customary until fairly recently. The longer passages (T7\u201312) yielded five recurrent \"quotations,\" or at least passages supposedly reporting Eudemus\u2019 words (apart from paratitheatai, I noted verbs such as prograph\u0113in, legein). Since they confirm information in similar quotations (e.g., his discussion of Being [T8], of Parmenides [T9], of predication [T10], and on his method regarding Aristotle\u2019s arguments [T12]), it was argued that they should at least be taken into account instead of suppressed or hidden away. The duplication of material can, in itself, be informative about the value of it for our assessment of the surviving material.\r\n\r\nFinally, I suggested that a probable reason for the transmission of Eudemian material was its value as an exegetical aid to ancient commentators. Simplicius almost treats Eudemus as a \"colleague\" who also aimed at clarifying Aristotle\u2019s difficult prose (see quote from Wehrli, above, note 18). The higher ratio of references compared to Theophrastus seems to indicate that Eudemus\u2019 clarifications of Aristotle\u2019s thought in physics were regarded as more useful and therefore found their way into later exegetical writings. Blumenthal (p. 10) has expressed the paradox well: \"The general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters.\" Perhaps Simplicius found Eudemus useful as a cure for Aristotle\u2019s unclarity; this would explain the emphasis he puts on Eudemus\u2019 clarity (note the frequency of saph\u0113s) as against Aristotle\u2019s\u2014supposedly intended\u2014obscurity (asapheia, see esp. In Cat. 7.1\u201322).\r\n\r\nThe unhelpful handling of a small number of references discussed above is only one of several reasons to re-evaluate the method and form of Wehrli\u2019s edition today. We have become more aware than ever that editing fragments is not a cut-and-paste operation but a difficult and complex exercise that needs to take several contexts into account. In this particular case, editing passages as fragmentary bits of text lifted out of their context is perhaps impossible in the tradition in which Simplicius\u2019 prose often does not allow us to lift a text out of its context without losing important information regarding the motives, intentions, and overall argument of the source author. As soon as the thoughts and words of a cited author become deeply embedded in the fabric of the immediate context, we need to be as well-informed as possible about the source author. There are many unpredictable contingencies in the transmission of earlier thought, and common-sense tactics such as leaving out \"redundant\" duplicate passages may backfire. Therefore, it makes sense for each case to be tested on its own merits.\r\n\r\nThese considerations show Wehrli\u2019s edition to be the product of an outdated method, and it is hoped that this essay, together with the obiter dicta culled from reviews (see appendices), will be of use to the next editor of the Eudemian fragments in physics. [conclusion p. 146-149]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nQEtetEDiyq3flk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":972,"section_of":287,"pages":"127-156","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":287,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Eudemus of Rhodes","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"Eudemus of Rhodes was a pupil of Aristotle in the second half of the fourth century BCE. When Aristotle died, having chosen Theophrastus as his successor, Eudemus returned to Rhodes where it appears he founded his own school. His contributions to logic were significant: he took issue with Aristotle concerning the status of the existential \"is,\" and together with Theophrastus he made important contributions to hypothetical syllogistic and modal logic. He wrote at length on physics, largely following Aristotle, and took an interest in animal behavior. His histories of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy were of great importance and are responsible for much of what we know of these subjects in earlier times.Volume 11 in the series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities is different in that it is composed entirely of articles that discuss Eudemus from a variety of viewpoints. Sixteen scholars representing seven nations have contributed essays to the volume. A special essay by Dimitri Gutas brings together for the first time the Arabic material relating to Eudemus. Other contributors and essays are: Hans B. Gottschalk, \"Eudemus and the Peripatos\"; Tiziano Dorandi, \"Quale aspetto controverso della biografia di Eudemo di Rodi\"; William W. Fortenbaugh, \"Eudemus' Work On Expression\"; Pamela M. Huby, \"Did Aristotle Reply to Eudemus and Theophrastus on Some Logical Issues?\"; Robert Sharples, \"Eudemus Physics: Change, Place and Time\"; Han Baltussen, \"Wehrli's Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics\"; Sylvia Berryman, \"Sumphues and Suneches: Continuity and Coherence in Early Peripatetic Texts\"; Istvbn Bodnbr, \"Eudemus' Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli\"; Deborah K. W. Modrak, \"Phantasia, Thought and Science in Eudemus\"; Stephen White, \"Eudemus the Naturalist\"; J orgen Mejer, \"Eudemus and the History of Science\"; Leonid Zhmud, \"Eudemus' History of Mathematics\"; Alan C. Bowen, \"Eudemus' History of Early Greek Astronomy: Two Hypotheses\"; Dmitri Panchenko, \"Eudemus Fr. 145 Wehrli and the Ancient Theories of Lunar Light\"; and Gbbor Betegh, \"On Eudemus Fr. 150 Wehrli.\"\"[Eudemus of Rhodes] marks a substantial progress in our knowledge of Eurdemus. For it enlarges the scope of the information available on this author, highlights the need of, and paves the way to, a new critical edition of the Greek fragments of his works, and provides a clearer view of his life, thought, sources and influence. In all these respects, it represents a necessary complement to Wehrli's edition of Eudemus' fragments.\" -Amos Bertolacci, The Classical BulletinIstvbn Bodnbr is a member of the philosophy department at the Eotvos University in Budapest, where he teaches and does research on ancient philosophy. He has been a junior fellow at the Center for Hellenic Studies and most recently has been an Alexander von Humboldt Stipendiat in Berlin at the Max Plank Institut for Wissenschaftsgeschichte and at the Freie Universitot.William W. Fortenbaugh is professor of classics at Rutgers University. In addition to editing several books in this series, he has written Aristotle on Emotion and Quellen zur Ethik Theophrastus. New is his edition of Theophrastus's treatise On Sweat.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":287,"pubplace":"New Jersey","publisher":"Transaction Publisher","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"11","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Epea and grammata : oral and written communication in ancient Greece |
Pages | 173-189 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Foley, John Miles , Worthington, Ian |
Translator(s) |
This chapter will examine a small aspect of the scholarly method of the commentator Simplicius. It seems appropriate to start with some justification for dealing with an author from Late Antiquity on the theme of orality and literacy, as it is generally assumed that these terms refer to the ‘early’ stages of Greek culture when w'riting found its way into the intellectual activities of Greek society. As I shall dis cuss the methodology of a member of the Platonic school of around 530 AD, the briefest statement to qualify the terms for this period is to say that author belonged to a highly literate and tradition-con scious movement, which taught and studied philosophy building on previous attempts at exegesis. [p. 174] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ktoxm2Z9V9fSxZN |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"974","_score":null,"_source":{"id":974,"authors_free":[{"id":1471,"entry_id":974,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1472,"entry_id":974,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":40,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Foley, John Miles","free_first_name":"John Miles","free_last_name":"Foley","norm_person":{"id":40,"first_name":"John Miles","last_name":"Foley","full_name":"Foley, John Miles","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137343485","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1473,"entry_id":974,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":41,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Worthington, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Worthington","norm_person":{"id":41,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Worthington","full_name":"Worthington, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136869742","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations","main_title":{"title":"Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations"},"abstract":"This chapter will examine a small aspect of the scholarly method \r\nof the commentator Simplicius. It seems appropriate to start with \r\nsome justification for dealing with an author from Late Antiquity on \r\nthe theme of orality and literacy, as it is generally assumed that these \r\nterms refer to the \u2018early\u2019 stages of Greek culture when w'riting found \r\nits way into the intellectual activities of Greek society. As I shall dis\u00ad\r\ncuss the methodology of a member of the Platonic school of around \r\n530 AD, the briefest statement to qualify the terms for this period \r\nis to say that author belonged to a highly literate and tradition-con\u00ad\r\nscious movement, which taught and studied philosophy building on \r\nprevious attempts at exegesis. [p. 174]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ktoxm2Z9V9fSxZN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":40,"full_name":"Foley, John Miles","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":41,"full_name":"Worthington, Ian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":974,"section_of":293,"pages":"173-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":293,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Epea and grammata : oral and written communication in ancient Greece","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Foley\/Worthington2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"This volume deals with aspects of orality and oral traditions in ancient Greece, specifically literature, rhetoric and society, and philosophy, and is a selection of refereed papers from the fourth biennial Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece conference, held at the University of Missouri Columbia in 2000.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ktoxm2Z9V9fSxZN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":293,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Mnemosyne","volume":"Supplementum 230","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
Title | Addenda Eudemea |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2006 |
Journal | Leeds International Classical Studies |
Volume | 5 |
Issue | 1 |
Pages | 1-28 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
This paper presents 16 fragments of the Peripatetic philosopher Eudemus (c. 350-290 BC), which were not printed in the (still) standard edition of Wehrli (1955; revised 1969), but which had been signalled in passing by De Lacy (1957) and Gottschalk (1973). The aim is to provide a text with translation and brief annotation, to be included in a future edition, and to argue that context can add to our understanding of these passages. Their importance lies in bringing greater comprehensiveness to the collection, offering at least five additional (near) quotations, and illustrating the new trend in fragment studies to contextualize fragments on several levels in order to gain further insight into their value and reception. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/HRE0ldIrfqIxrEE |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1119","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1119,"authors_free":[{"id":1692,"entry_id":1119,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Addenda Eudemea","main_title":{"title":"Addenda Eudemea"},"abstract":"This paper presents 16 fragments of the Peripatetic philosopher Eudemus (c. 350-290 BC), which were not printed in the (still) standard edition of Wehrli (1955; revised 1969), but which had been signalled in passing by De Lacy (1957) and Gottschalk (1973). The aim is to provide a text with translation and brief annotation, to be included in a future edition, and to argue that context can add to our understanding of these passages. Their importance lies in bringing greater comprehensiveness to the collection, offering at least five additional (near) quotations, and illustrating the new trend in fragment studies to contextualize fragments on several levels in order to gain further insight into their value and reception. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2006","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HRE0ldIrfqIxrEE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1119,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Leeds International Classical Studies","volume":"5","issue":"1","pages":"1-28"}},"sort":["Addenda Eudemea"]}
Title | Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 1-19 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Fazzo, Silvia |
Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
Translator(s) |
[Conclusion, p. 14]: We have seen that it was only in the twentieth century, after the two World Wars, that the study of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca began to come into its own as a field of research.44 Among the first to make profitable use of the CAG were those Orientalists, chiefly from Germany, who were interested in Greek-Arabic connections and translations. In the case of Alexander, the availability of critical editions of the texts made it possible to identify the Greek counterparts of many short pieces transmitted in Arabic under his name but with titles different from those familiar to us. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MKWHuyZ1jyOKcwR |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"552","_score":null,"_source":{"id":552,"authors_free":[{"id":778,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":77,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","free_first_name":"Silvia","free_last_name":"Fazzo","norm_person":{"id":77,"first_name":"Silvia","last_name":"Fazzo","full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2100,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2101,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2102,"entry_id":552,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition","main_title":{"title":"Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition"},"abstract":"[Conclusion, p. 14]: We have seen that it was only in the twentieth century, after the two World Wars, that the \r\nstudy of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca began to come into its own as a field of \r\nresearch.44 Among the first to make profitable use of the CAG were those Orientalists, \r\nchiefly from Germany, who were interested in Greek-Arabic connections and translations. \r\nIn the case of Alexander, the availability of critical editions of the texts made it possible to \r\nidentify the Greek counterparts of many short pieces transmitted in Arabic under his name \r\nbut with titles different from those familiar to us.","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MKWHuyZ1jyOKcwR","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":77,"full_name":"Fazzo, Silvia","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":552,"section_of":233,"pages":"1-19","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Aristotelianism as a commentary tradition"]}
Title | Early Reactions to Plato’s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2003 |
Published in | Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus |
Pages | 49-71 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Sharples, Robert W. , Sheppard, Anne D. |
Translator(s) |
We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato’s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus. My perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the "commentary tradition." Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions—e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is—would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as "what is a commentary?", "what form did the interpretation of texts take?", or "when do commentaries emerge?") require a fresh look. The "prehistory" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century "commentary," Edward Hussey already points out that "DP’s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making." The two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus—as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective. The ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus’ work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, "reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus’ works were so closely associated with Aristotle’s that his works became mixed up with his master’s. In late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters. Some twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity. I should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the "pre-history" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/rECjmb8p0bsRQza |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"971","_score":null,"_source":{"id":971,"authors_free":[{"id":1462,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2351,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":42,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","free_first_name":"Robert W.","free_last_name":"Sharples","norm_person":{"id":42,"first_name":"Robert W.","last_name":"Sharples","full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/114269505","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2352,"entry_id":971,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":43,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","free_first_name":"Anne D.","free_last_name":"Sheppard","norm_person":{"id":43,"first_name":"Anne D.","last_name":"Sheppard","full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158024592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus","main_title":{"title":"Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus"},"abstract":"We are reasonably well informed about what might justly be thought of as the commentary tradition of the late Hellenistic and late antique period. In this series of papers on the theme Plato\u2019s Timaeus and the Commentary Tradition, an obvious choice of topic has been to discuss the works of authors who explicitly declare themselves to be commenting upon or clarifying the text of an author. Most papers in this volume have therefore justly seen it as their task to clarify the interaction between one commentator and the Timaeus.\r\n\r\nMy perspective is slightly different. Commentary, as we usually see it, must have had its precursors in some form or other. As it happens, we have some evidence related to the Timaeus which makes this a reasonable assumption. I therefore want to look at two thinkers whose interpretative efforts occur at the beginnings of the \"commentary tradition.\" Here things are less clear and well-defined, in that at this end of the scale we are dealing with the emergence of exegesis. This means that certain fundamental assumptions\u2014e.g., what a commentary or a commentator is\u2014would no longer have an obvious value as starting points and that important questions about the interaction between authors and texts (such as \"what is a commentary?\", \"what form did the interpretation of texts take?\", or \"when do commentaries emerge?\") require a fresh look.\r\n\r\nThe \"prehistory\" of exegesis has received renewed impetus from the study of the so-called Derveni Papyrus (DP), a remarkable document from the 4th century BCE, representing a running commentary with allegorical interpretation on an Orphic poem. In his review of the collection of essays on this 4th-century \"commentary,\" Edward Hussey already points out that \"DP\u2019s interpretative procedures and terminology are already fairly formalized, in a way that shows parallels with the Protagoras, and suggests a self-conscious academic discipline in the making.\"\r\n\r\nThe two protagonists in this analysis are Theophrastus and Epicurus, both close in time to Plato. Epicurus is in many ways linked to Theophrastus\u2014as has been emerging only recently, especially through the work of David Sedley. My choice of overarching theme provides the analysis of these critical voices with context and perspective.\r\n\r\nThe ancient and modern perception of Theophrastus is a variable one, but in general, it is slanted toward a rather negative assessment. Theophrastus\u2019 work has suffered a bad press across the ages. The perception seems to be that Theophrastus is a second-rate thinker (as one scholar once commented, \"reading Theophrastus is like reading Aristotle on a bad day\"). This perhaps somewhat offhand remark may refer only to the stylistic (de)merits or to the quality of thought found in the sparsely preserved remains of what once was a considerable output. But it seems unfair in many ways. In ancient times, Theophrastus\u2019 works were so closely associated with Aristotle\u2019s that his works became mixed up with his master\u2019s.\r\n\r\nIn late antiquity, the general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters.\r\n\r\nSome twelve fragments have been preserved which throw light on the unexpected place the second head of the Peripatos acquired in the later Platonist tradition. I think it will be instructive to have a look at these, because they say something not only about the role of Theophrastus but also about the perception of his comments in antiquity.\r\n\r\nI should confess that my ulterior motive is to look at these early reactions as a stage in the emergence of exegesis and (formal) commentary. My interest, then, is in the \"pre-history\" of the commentary tradition. The crucial question which will be constantly driving my analysis is: can the early polemical responses be viewed as the start of commentary or not? [introduction p. 49-50]","btype":2,"date":"2003","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rECjmb8p0bsRQza","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":42,"full_name":"Sharples, Robert W.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":43,"full_name":"Sheppard, Anne D.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":971,"section_of":157,"pages":"49-71","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":157,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sharples\/Sheppard2003","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2003","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2003","abstract":"Twelve academic essays, given during the Institute of Classical Studies research seminar in 2000 and 2001, examine Plato's vision of the `real world' as he presented it in Timaeus while considering the text's influence on classical philosophers and scientists. Specific subjects include astronomy, the reactions of Aristotle and others to Timaeus , Hellenistic musicology, Proclus' Commentary , comparisons with Aristotle's Physics , mythology. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/UsvEmjeEeL17itA","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":157,"pubplace":"University of London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies","volume":"46, Supplement 78","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Early Reactions to Plato\u2019s Timaeus: polemic and exegesis in Theophrastus and Epicurus"]}
Title | Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 37-50 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Betegh, Gábor |
Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
Translator(s) |
The text of the Derveni papyrus has often been labeled ‘a commentary’, or a hypomnema and its unidentified author has habitually been called ‘the Derveni commentator.’ The roll, which was found among the remains of the funeral pyre of a Macedonian tomb, has been dated to the last third of the fourth century BC on the basis of the archeological evidence. Moreover, there is an overriding consensus among scholars that the text was composed sometime around the end of the Presocratic period.1 Given this early dating of the text, it appears to be most significant for our knowledge of the early, pre-Hellenistic phase of the commentary tradition. Indeed, if both the dating and the above characterization is correct, the Derveni text is probably the earliest surviving specimen of this genre, and certainly the earliest document providing first-hand evidence of sufficient length for direct textual analysis.Alas, things with the Derveni papyrus are never so clear-cut. Most importantly, it is not entirely evident whether it is legitimate to call the whole text a ‘commentary’ at all, and, if so, with what qualifications. This is the basic question that I shall try to examine in this paper. I shall tackle the issue by breaking it down into two, more or less independent, sets of problems. The first of the two is largely formal and relatively simple. It amounts to asking whether or not the Derveni text, or more precisely what has survived of it, conforms with certain formal and structural features that we normally expect from a commentary. The second set of problems is considerably more complex. To put it bluntly, I shall ask why the Derveni author set out in the first place to interpret the object of his exegesis. This question thus pertains to both the author’s cognitive and pragmatic attitude towards the object of his interpretative enterprise, and, closely related to these, to the specific cultural and sociological context in which the author pursues his exegesis. It is also in this second part that I shall try to present a sympathetic rendering of the so-called ‘allegorical’ method of the Derveni author. [Introduction, p. 37] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pNaYfVx1t4ULvdc |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1007","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1007,"authors_free":[{"id":1516,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":398,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","free_first_name":"G\u00e1bor","free_last_name":"Betegh","norm_person":{"id":398,"first_name":"G\u00e1bor","last_name":"Betegh","full_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/140805044","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2329,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2330,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2331,"entry_id":1007,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus","main_title":{"title":"Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus"},"abstract":"The text of the Derveni papyrus has often been labeled \u2018a commentary\u2019, or a hypomnema \r\nand its unidentified author has habitually been called \u2018the Derveni commentator.\u2019 The roll, \r\nwhich was found among the remains of the funeral pyre of a Macedonian tomb, has been \r\ndated to the last third of the fourth century BC on the basis of the archeological evidence. \r\nMoreover, there is an overriding consensus among scholars that the text was composed \r\nsometime around the end of the Presocratic period.1 Given this early dating of the text, it \r\nappears to be most significant for our knowledge of the early, pre-Hellenistic phase of the \r\ncommentary tradition. Indeed, if both the dating and the above characterization is correct, \r\nthe Derveni text is probably the earliest surviving specimen of this genre, and certainly the \r\nearliest document providing first-hand evidence of sufficient length for direct textual \r\nanalysis.Alas, things with the Derveni papyrus are never so clear-cut. Most importantly, it is not \r\nentirely evident whether it is legitimate to call the whole text a \u2018commentary\u2019 at all, and, if \r\nso, with what qualifications. This is the basic question that I shall try to examine in this \r\npaper. I shall tackle the issue by breaking it down into two, more or less independent, sets \r\nof problems. The first of the two is largely formal and relatively simple. It amounts to \r\nasking whether or not the Derveni text, or more precisely what has survived of it, \r\nconforms with certain formal and structural features that we normally expect from a \r\ncommentary. The second set of problems is considerably more complex. To put it bluntly, \r\nI shall ask why the Derveni author set out in the first place to interpret the object of his \r\nexegesis. This question thus pertains to both the author\u2019s cognitive and pragmatic attitude \r\ntowards the object of his interpretative enterprise, and, closely related to these, to the \r\nspecific cultural and sociological context in which the author pursues his exegesis. It is \r\nalso in this second part that I shall try to present a sympathetic rendering of the so-called \r\n\u2018allegorical\u2019 method of the Derveni author. [Introduction, p. 37]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pNaYfVx1t4ULvdc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":398,"full_name":"Betegh, G\u00e1bor","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1007,"section_of":233,"pages":"37-50","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1007,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries","volume":"38","issue":"1","pages":"37-50"}},"sort":["Exegesis in the Derveni Papyrus"]}
Title | From Polemic to Exegesis: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2007 |
Journal | Poetics Today |
Volume | 28 |
Issue | 2 |
Pages | 247–281 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Commentary was an important vehicle for philosophical debate in late antiquity. Its antecedents lie in the rise of rational argumentation, polemical rivalry, literacy, and the canonization of texts. This essay aims to give a historical and typological outline of philosophical exegesis in antiquity, from the earliest allegorizing readings of Homer to the full-blown “running commentary” in the Platonic tradition (fourth to sixth centuries CE). Running commentaries are mostly on authoritative thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle. Yet they are never mere scholarly enterprises but, rather, springboards for syncretistic clarification, elaboration, and creative interpretation. Two case studies (Galen 129-219 CE, Simplicius ca. 530 CE) will illustrate the range of exegetical tools available at the end of a long tradition in medical science and in reading Aristotle through Neoplatonic eyes, respectively. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/9evl1bXvfOTYX0r |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"968","_score":null,"_source":{"id":968,"authors_free":[{"id":1455,"entry_id":968,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"From Polemic to Exegesis: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary","main_title":{"title":"From Polemic to Exegesis: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary"},"abstract":"Commentary was an important vehicle for philosophical debate in late antiquity. Its antecedents lie in the rise of rational argumentation, polemical rivalry, literacy, and the canonization of texts. This essay aims to give a historical and typological outline of philosophical exegesis in antiquity, from the earliest alle\u00adgorizing readings of Homer to the full-blown \u201crunning commentary\u201d in the Pla\u00adtonic tradition (fourth to sixth centuries CE). Running commentaries are mostly on authoritative thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle. Yet they are never mere scholarly enterprises but, rather, springboards for syncretistic clarification, elaboration, and creative interpretation. Two case studies (Galen 129-219 CE, Simplicius ca. 530 CE) will illustrate the range of exegetical tools available at the end of a long tradition in medical science and in reading Aristotle through Neoplatonic eyes, respectively. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/9evl1bXvfOTYX0r","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":968,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Poetics Today","volume":"28","issue":"2","pages":"247\u2013281"}},"sort":["From Polemic to Exegesis: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary"]}
Title | Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Epea and grammata : oral and written communication in ancient Greece |
Pages | 173-189 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Foley, John Miles , Worthington, Ian |
Translator(s) |
This chapter will examine a small aspect of the scholarly method of the commentator Simplicius. It seems appropriate to start with some justification for dealing with an author from Late Antiquity on the theme of orality and literacy, as it is generally assumed that these terms refer to the ‘early’ stages of Greek culture when w'riting found its way into the intellectual activities of Greek society. As I shall dis cuss the methodology of a member of the Platonic school of around 530 AD, the briefest statement to qualify the terms for this period is to say that author belonged to a highly literate and tradition-con scious movement, which taught and studied philosophy building on previous attempts at exegesis. [p. 174] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/ktoxm2Z9V9fSxZN |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"974","_score":null,"_source":{"id":974,"authors_free":[{"id":1471,"entry_id":974,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1472,"entry_id":974,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":40,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Foley, John Miles","free_first_name":"John Miles","free_last_name":"Foley","norm_person":{"id":40,"first_name":"John Miles","last_name":"Foley","full_name":"Foley, John Miles","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/137343485","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1473,"entry_id":974,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":41,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Worthington, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Worthington","norm_person":{"id":41,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Worthington","full_name":"Worthington, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136869742","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations","main_title":{"title":"Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations"},"abstract":"This chapter will examine a small aspect of the scholarly method \r\nof the commentator Simplicius. It seems appropriate to start with \r\nsome justification for dealing with an author from Late Antiquity on \r\nthe theme of orality and literacy, as it is generally assumed that these \r\nterms refer to the \u2018early\u2019 stages of Greek culture when w'riting found \r\nits way into the intellectual activities of Greek society. As I shall dis\u00ad\r\ncuss the methodology of a member of the Platonic school of around \r\n530 AD, the briefest statement to qualify the terms for this period \r\nis to say that author belonged to a highly literate and tradition-con\u00ad\r\nscious movement, which taught and studied philosophy building on \r\nprevious attempts at exegesis. [p. 174]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ktoxm2Z9V9fSxZN","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":40,"full_name":"Foley, John Miles","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":41,"full_name":"Worthington, Ian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":974,"section_of":293,"pages":"173-189","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":293,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Epea and grammata : oral and written communication in ancient Greece","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Foley\/Worthington2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"This volume deals with aspects of orality and oral traditions in ancient Greece, specifically literature, rhetoric and society, and philosophy, and is a selection of refereed papers from the fourth biennial Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece conference, held at the University of Missouri Columbia in 2000.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/ktoxm2Z9V9fSxZN","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":293,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston \u2013 K\u00f6ln","publisher":"Brill","series":"Mnemosyne","volume":"Supplementum 230","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Philology or Philosophy? Simplicius on the Use of Quotations"]}
Title | Philosophers, Exegetes, Scholars: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary from Plato to Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre |
Pages | 173-194 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Kraus, Christina S. , Stray, Christopher |
Translator(s) |
This chapter traces the evolution of the philosophical commentary and aims to show how the increasingly scholarly nature of the commentary culture exerted a distinctive influence on philosophical methods and discourses. While Plato was perhaps a proto-exegete, systematic commenting only took off in the first century bee once an authoritative “corpus” of works had been established. Commenting on specific texts became an important way to philosophize. The ancient philosophical commentary thus emerged as a “natural by-product” of the ongoing dialogue between teachers and students. Good evidence for written commentary is found in the first century BCE and CE, foreshadowing the rise of the full running commentary of a quite scholarly nature by Aristotelians like Aspasius and Alexander of Aphrodisias (2nd c. CE); after Plotinus (205-270 CE) the Platonists added their own interpretive works on Aristotle, leading to the comprehensive exegeses of Proclus (fifth c.) and Simplicius (sixth c. CE). |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6lizn5XYGEpJYmH |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"963","_score":null,"_source":{"id":963,"authors_free":[{"id":1445,"entry_id":963,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1446,"entry_id":963,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":384,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Kraus, Christina S. ","free_first_name":"Christina S.","free_last_name":"Kraus","norm_person":{"id":384,"first_name":"Christina S.","last_name":"Kraus","full_name":"Kraus, Christina S.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1067516212","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1447,"entry_id":963,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":385,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stray, Christopher","free_first_name":"Christopher","free_last_name":"Stray","norm_person":{"id":385,"first_name":"Christopher","last_name":"Stray","full_name":"Stray, Christopher","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/135638674","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philosophers, Exegetes, Scholars: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary from Plato to Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Philosophers, Exegetes, Scholars: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary from Plato to Simplicius"},"abstract":"This chapter traces the evolution of the philosophical commentary and aims to show how the increasingly scholarly nature of the commentary culture exerted a distinctive influence on philosophical methods and discourses. While Plato was perhaps a proto-exegete, systematic commenting only took off in the first century bee once an authoritative \u201ccorpus\u201d of works had been established. Commenting on specific texts became an important way to philosophize. The ancient philosophical commentary thus emerged as a \u201cnatural by-product\u201d of the ongoing dialogue between teachers and students. Good evidence for written commentary is found in the first century BCE and CE, foreshadowing the rise of the full running commentary of a quite scholarly nature by Aristotelians like Aspasius and Alexander of Aphrodisias (2nd c. CE); after Plotinus (205-270 CE) the Platonists added their own interpretive works on Aristotle, leading to the comprehensive exegeses of Proclus (fifth c.) and Simplicius (sixth c. CE).","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6lizn5XYGEpJYmH","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":384,"full_name":"Kraus, Christina S.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":385,"full_name":"Stray, Christopher","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":963,"section_of":292,"pages":"173-194","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":292,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Kraus\/Stray2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2015","abstract":"This book consists of twenty-six chapters on classical commentaries which deal with commentaries from the ancient world to the twentieth century. The book contributes to the interface between two emerging fields of study: the history of scholarship and the history of the book. It builds on earlier work on this area by paying particular attention to: (1) specific editions, whether those regarded as classics in their own right, or those that seem representative of important trends or orientations in scholarship; (2) traditions of commentary on specific classical authors; and (3) the processes of publishing and printing as they have related to the production of editions. The book takes account of the material form of commentaries and of their role in education: the chapters deal both with academic books and also with books written for schools, and pay particular attention to the role of commentaries in the reception of classical texts.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6lizn5XYGEpJYmH","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":292,"pubplace":"Oxford","publisher":"Oxford University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Philosophers, Exegetes, Scholars: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary from Plato to Simplicius"]}
Title | Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator |
Type | Monograph |
Language | English |
Date | 2008 |
Publication Place | London |
Publisher | Duckworth |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
This is the first book-length study in English of the interpretative and philosophical approach of the commentaries of Simplicius of Cilicia (c. AD 530). Simplicius' work, marked by doctrinal complexity and scholarship, is unusually self-conscious, learned and rich in its sources, and he is therefore one of those rare authors who is of interest to ancient philosophers, historians and classicists alike. Here, Han Baltussen argues that our understanding of Simplicius' methodology will be greatly enhanced if we study how his scholarly approach impacts on his philosophical exegesis. His commentaries are placed in their intellectual context and several case studies shed light on his critical treatment of earlier philosophers and his often polemical use of previous commentaries. "Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius" not only clarifies the objectives, pre-suppositions and impact of Simplicius' work, but also illustrates how, as a competent philosopher explicating Aristotelian and Platonic ideas, he continues and develops a method that pursues philosophy by way of exegetical engagement with earlier thinkers and commentators. The investigation opens up connections with broader issues, such as the reception of Presocratic philosophy within the commentary tradition, the nature and purpose of his commentaries, and the demise of pagan philosophy. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/6fusW1GpgUp9w7O |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"226","_score":null,"_source":{"id":226,"authors_free":[{"id":288,"entry_id":226,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator"},"abstract":"This is the first book-length study in English of the interpretative and philosophical approach of the commentaries of Simplicius of Cilicia (c. AD 530). Simplicius' work, marked by doctrinal complexity and scholarship, is unusually self-conscious, learned and rich in its sources, and he is therefore one of those rare authors who is of interest to ancient philosophers, historians and classicists alike. Here, Han Baltussen argues that our understanding of Simplicius' methodology will be greatly enhanced if we study how his scholarly approach impacts on his philosophical exegesis. His commentaries are placed in their intellectual context and several case studies shed light on his critical treatment of earlier philosophers and his often polemical use of previous commentaries. \"Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius\" not only clarifies the objectives, pre-suppositions and impact of Simplicius' work, but also illustrates how, as a competent philosopher explicating Aristotelian and Platonic ideas, he continues and develops a method that pursues philosophy by way of exegetical engagement with earlier thinkers and commentators. The investigation opens up connections with broader issues, such as the reception of Presocratic philosophy within the commentary tradition, the nature and purpose of his commentaries, and the demise of pagan philosophy.","btype":1,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6fusW1GpgUp9w7O","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":226,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Duckworth","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator"]}
Title | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Publication Place | London |
Publisher | Institute of Classical Studies |
Series | Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS) |
Volume | Supplement 83.1 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
Translator(s) |
This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji’s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nqTHgI2QahbENt5 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"233","_score":null,"_source":{"id":233,"authors_free":[{"id":297,"entry_id":233,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":298,"entry_id":233,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":299,"entry_id":233,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","main_title":{"title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1"},"abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","btype":4,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1"]}
Title | Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 97-120 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Karamanolis, George |
Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
Translator(s) |
From the foregoing discussion, it emerges, I hope, that Porphyry was inspired by a certain ideology regarding Aristotle’s philosophy. This ideology, which I have tried to outline, is quite central to Porphyry’s overall philosophical profile. It stems from a set of interpretations of some of Aristotle’s central doctrines, which show Aristotle to be in agreement with Plato’s philosophy, despite some differences or even objections on Aristotle’s part. We can find these interpretations in his extant work, but probably they were fully spelled out in some of his lost works, such as in his On Plato and Aristotle belonging to the same school of thought (Suda s.v. Porphyry) or in his On the difference between Plato and Aristotle (Elias in Porphyrii Isag. 39.7-8). There is little reason to think that the titles of the two works represent two contradictory Porphyrian positions about the relation between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, as has often been argued, and still less that they may stand for one work. For, as has been seen, Porphyry did not deny the existence of differences between Plato and Aristotle; rather, he appears to have argued that these were not as dramatic as had been thought by Platonists and Peripatetics alike. In Porphyry’s interpretation, as has been reconstructed above, Aristotle’s philosophy was close to and complementary with Plato’s doctrine: Aristotle’s logic, though not Platonic, is considered to be compatible and complementary with Platonic philosophy, while Aristotle’s ontology is deemed similar to that of Plato’s. Such an interpretation of Aristotle commands commitment to at least some parts of his philosophy. This feature distinguishes Porphyry from the entire previous Platonist tradition. It is this that motivates him to recommend Aristotle’s philosophy to fellow Platonists as a philosophically valuable one through the writing of detailed commentaries in the manner of Peripatetics like Andronicus, Aspasius, and Alexander. In fact, as has been suggested above, Porphyry was much influenced by their interpretations of Aristotle’s thought. But he also distanced himself from them, because he wrote for a different readership with different expectations and philosophical views. Porphyry’s commentaries were specifically written for Platonists, who were urged to understand that, given a certain interpretation of Aristotle, not only can Aristotle be studied along with Plato, but that this study is in fact so philosophically important as to become indispensable for a Platonist. If Platonists after Porphyry kept writing commentaries on Aristotle, often drawing extensively on Porphyry’s own work, they did this because they largely accepted Porphyry’s position on Aristotle’s philosophy. This does not mean that they always agreed with him. But it is surely Porphyry who set the agenda for the discussion of Aristotle’s philosophy by the later Platonists. [conclusion p. 118-119] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PKJkoGjXKCovNlB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1362","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1362,"authors_free":[{"id":2038,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":207,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Karamanolis, George","free_first_name":"George","free_last_name":"Karamanolis","norm_person":{"id":207,"first_name":"George","last_name":"Karamanolis","full_name":"Karamanolis, George","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/129979007","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2399,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2400,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2401,"entry_id":1362,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle"},"abstract":"From the foregoing discussion, it emerges, I hope, that Porphyry was inspired by a certain ideology regarding Aristotle\u2019s philosophy. This ideology, which I have tried to outline, is quite central to Porphyry\u2019s overall philosophical profile. It stems from a set of interpretations of some of Aristotle\u2019s central doctrines, which show Aristotle to be in agreement with Plato\u2019s philosophy, despite some differences or even objections on Aristotle\u2019s part. We can find these interpretations in his extant work, but probably they were fully spelled out in some of his lost works, such as in his On Plato and Aristotle belonging to the same school of thought (Suda s.v. Porphyry) or in his On the difference between Plato and Aristotle (Elias in Porphyrii Isag. 39.7-8).\r\n\r\nThere is little reason to think that the titles of the two works represent two contradictory Porphyrian positions about the relation between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, as has often been argued, and still less that they may stand for one work. For, as has been seen, Porphyry did not deny the existence of differences between Plato and Aristotle; rather, he appears to have argued that these were not as dramatic as had been thought by Platonists and Peripatetics alike.\r\n\r\nIn Porphyry\u2019s interpretation, as has been reconstructed above, Aristotle\u2019s philosophy was close to and complementary with Plato\u2019s doctrine: Aristotle\u2019s logic, though not Platonic, is considered to be compatible and complementary with Platonic philosophy, while Aristotle\u2019s ontology is deemed similar to that of Plato\u2019s. Such an interpretation of Aristotle commands commitment to at least some parts of his philosophy. This feature distinguishes Porphyry from the entire previous Platonist tradition. It is this that motivates him to recommend Aristotle\u2019s philosophy to fellow Platonists as a philosophically valuable one through the writing of detailed commentaries in the manner of Peripatetics like Andronicus, Aspasius, and Alexander.\r\n\r\nIn fact, as has been suggested above, Porphyry was much influenced by their interpretations of Aristotle\u2019s thought. But he also distanced himself from them, because he wrote for a different readership with different expectations and philosophical views. Porphyry\u2019s commentaries were specifically written for Platonists, who were urged to understand that, given a certain interpretation of Aristotle, not only can Aristotle be studied along with Plato, but that this study is in fact so philosophically important as to become indispensable for a Platonist.\r\n\r\nIf Platonists after Porphyry kept writing commentaries on Aristotle, often drawing extensively on Porphyry\u2019s own work, they did this because they largely accepted Porphyry\u2019s position on Aristotle\u2019s philosophy. This does not mean that they always agreed with him. But it is surely Porphyry who set the agenda for the discussion of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy by the later Platonists. [conclusion p. 118-119]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PKJkoGjXKCovNlB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":207,"full_name":"Karamanolis, George","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1362,"section_of":233,"pages":"97-120","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Porphyry: The first Platonist commentator on Aristotle"]}
Title | Priscianus of Ludia |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs |
Pages | 695-696 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Keyser, Paul T. , Irby-Massie, Georgia L. |
Translator(s) |
Neo-Platonic philosopher and colleague of Simplicius, active in Athens when Justinian’s new laws forbade pagan philosophers to teach (529 CE). Little is known about his life or his works. His contribution to scientific writing lies solely in the incomplete Metaphrasis [paraphrase] of Theophrastus' On Sense-Perception, which discusses Aristotle’s psychology from a Neo-Platonic perspective and specifically inquires into what Theophrastus contributes to the subject in his Physics (Books 4–5). Together with Themistius’ summary version of Aristotle’s On the Soul, Priscian’s Metaphrasis is a major source on Theophrastus’ psychology. Steel attributes to Priscian a commentary on Aristotle’s On the Soul, but this is still disputed. Priscian’s Solutions to King Chosroes' Scientific Questions (Solutiones eorum de quibus dubitavit Chosroes Persarum rex—only in Latin translation, CTGS. 1.2), presumably written in Persia, belongs to the problemata genre, covering—without originality—topics such as the soul, sleep, astronomy, lunar phases, the four elements, animal species, and motion. [whole text] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/DUCMT9Wxvvxb3Jq |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1263","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1263,"authors_free":[{"id":1853,"entry_id":1263,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2092,"entry_id":1263,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":45,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","free_first_name":"Paul T.","free_last_name":"Keyser","norm_person":{"id":45,"first_name":"Paul T. ","last_name":"Keyser","full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1050677153","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2093,"entry_id":1263,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":44,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","free_first_name":"Georgia L.","free_last_name":"Irby-Massie","norm_person":{"id":44,"first_name":"Georgia L.","last_name":"Irby-Massie","full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121145972","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Priscianus of Ludia","main_title":{"title":"Priscianus of Ludia"},"abstract":"Neo-Platonic philosopher and colleague of Simplicius, active in Athens when Justinian\u2019s new laws forbade pagan philosophers to teach (529 CE). Little is known about his life or his works. His contribution to scientific writing lies solely in the incomplete Metaphrasis [paraphrase] of Theophrastus' On Sense-Perception, which discusses Aristotle\u2019s psychology from a Neo-Platonic perspective and specifically inquires into what Theophrastus contributes to the subject in his Physics (Books 4\u20135).\r\n\r\nTogether with Themistius\u2019 summary version of Aristotle\u2019s On the Soul, Priscian\u2019s Metaphrasis is a major source on Theophrastus\u2019 psychology. Steel attributes to Priscian a commentary on Aristotle\u2019s On the Soul, but this is still disputed.\r\n\r\nPriscian\u2019s Solutions to King Chosroes' Scientific Questions (Solutiones eorum de quibus dubitavit Chosroes Persarum rex\u2014only in Latin translation, CTGS. 1.2), presumably written in Persia, belongs to the problemata genre, covering\u2014without originality\u2014topics such as the soul, sleep, astronomy, lunar phases, the four elements, animal species, and motion. [whole text]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DUCMT9Wxvvxb3Jq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":45,"full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":44,"full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1263,"section_of":1265,"pages":"695-696","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1265,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Keyser\/Irby-Massie2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists is the first comprehensive English language work to provide a survey of all ancient natural science, from its beginnings through the end of Late Antiquity. A team of over 100 of the world\u2019s experts in the field have compiled this Encyclopedia, including entries which are not mentioned in any other reference work \u2013 resulting in a unique and hugely ambitious resource which will prove indispensable for anyone seeking the details of the history of ancient science.\r\n\r\nAdditional features include a Glossary, Gazetteer, and Time-Line. The Glossary explains many Greek (or Latin) terms difficult to translate, whilst the Gazetteer describes the many locales from which scientists came. The Time-Line shows the rapid rise in the practice of science in the 5th century BCE and rapid decline after Hadrian, due to the centralization of Roman power, with consequent loss of a context within which science could flourish. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/up8tW1NBxVY23yX","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1265,"pubplace":"London \u2013 New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1263,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"695-696"}},"sort":["Priscianus of Ludia"]}
Title | Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2023 |
Published in | Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception |
Pages | 441-456 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Muzala, Melina |
Translator(s) |
The focus of this chapter is one aspect of Aristotle’s dialectic which has been under-explored until recently and may throw some light on the approach of the late Platonist philosopher and scholar Simplicius (c. 480–c. 540 CE), in particular his Aristotelian tendencies when it comes to constructing his huge commentaries. I am referring to one of the possible applications of the dialectical method as sketched by Aristotle in his first and eighth books of the Topics. In my previous work I have been studying this aspect of Aristotle’s methodology, emphasizing the important distinction between propaedeutic and applied dialectic. At the core of those efforts was an attempt to show how one can take Aristotle’s claims for a scientific use of dialectic seriously, so long as we have a proper understanding of the status of propaedeutic dialectic as it is expounded in his Topics (school practice and exercises) against the applied form of (evolved) dialectic which goes far beyond this early form, debating skills which have become transformed into an internalized form of dialectic. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/qrKKk0yO57h5GCh |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1578","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1578,"authors_free":[{"id":2757,"entry_id":1578,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2758,"entry_id":1578,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":573,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Muzala, Melina","free_first_name":"Melina","free_last_name":"Muzala","norm_person":{"id":573,"first_name":"Melina","last_name":"Muzala","full_name":"Muzala, Melina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1229010815","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic"},"abstract":"The focus of this chapter is one aspect of Aristotle\u2019s dialectic which has been\r\nunder-explored until recently and may throw some light on the approach of the\r\nlate Platonist philosopher and scholar Simplicius (c. 480\u2013c. 540 CE), in particular\r\nhis Aristotelian tendencies when it comes to constructing his huge commentaries.\r\nI am referring to one of the possible applications of the dialectical method as\r\nsketched by Aristotle in his first and eighth books of the Topics. In my previous\r\nwork I have been studying this aspect of Aristotle\u2019s methodology, emphasizing\r\nthe important distinction between propaedeutic and applied dialectic. At the core of those efforts was an attempt to show how one can take Aristotle\u2019s claims\r\nfor a scientific use of dialectic seriously, so long as we have a proper understanding of the status of propaedeutic dialectic as it is expounded in his Topics (school practice and exercises) against the applied form of (evolved) dialectic which goes far beyond this early form, debating skills which have become transformed into an internalized form of dialectic. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2023","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/qrKKk0yO57h5GCh","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":573,"full_name":"Muzala, Melina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1578,"section_of":1577,"pages":"441-456","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1577,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"Ancient Greek Dialectic and Its Reception","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2023","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The volume focusses on ancient Greek dialectic and its impact on later philosophical thought, up to Byzantium. The contributions are written by distinguished scholars in their respective fields of study and shed light on the relation of ancient Greek dialectic to various aspects of human life and soul, to self-knowledge and self-consciousness, to science, rhetoric, and political theory. ","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MoGCt68R9BNx3zl","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1577,"pubplace":"Berlin\/Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Topics in Ancient Philosophy\/ Themen der antiken Philosophie","volume":"10","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius and Aristotle's Dialectic"]}
Title | Simplicius and the Commentator's Task: Clarifying Exegeses and Exegetical Techniques |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2019 |
Published in | Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier |
Pages | 159-183 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Strobel, Benedikt |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius’ exegetical strategies are explicitly and implicitly formed by what he was reading. What we still have shows him reading Aristotle and his interpreters. His isolation resulting from Justinian’s prohibition on pagan teaching activity may have contributed to the length of his expositions – which makes it plausible, therefore, that both historical and ideological reasons help to explain the size and approach of his works. In broad terms, we can characterise his method as close reading of texts, the use of multiple texts and authors, based on lemmata and an overall mixed agenda (pedagogy, philosophy, ideology). At a more detailed level we saw that he is capable of handling text variations and different manuscripts, speaks in a self-effacing way (a personal voice is rare), and uses advanced exegetical strategies (majority views important; letter vs. spirit; technical terminology). All these features justify the conclusion that his work was a synthesis of both philosophical views and their exegetical clarifications. Overall, Simplicius’ aim to annotate Aristotle’s work and preserve Greek philosophy with its exegetical tradition makes for a truly polymathic program driven by different, and sometimes competing, agendas. [conclusion, p. 180] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/A73Tqj9a5m6hmAe |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"655","_score":null,"_source":{"id":655,"authors_free":[{"id":943,"entry_id":655,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":944,"entry_id":655,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":326,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":{"id":326,"first_name":" Benedikt","last_name":"Strobel,","full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173882056","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and the Commentator's Task: Clarifying Exegeses and Exegetical Techniques","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and the Commentator's Task: Clarifying Exegeses and Exegetical Techniques"},"abstract":"Simplicius\u2019 exegetical strategies are explicitly and implicitly formed by what he was reading. What we still have shows him reading Aristotle and\r\nhis interpreters. His isolation resulting from Justinian\u2019s prohibition on pagan teaching activity may have contributed to the length of his expositions \u2013 which makes it plausible, therefore, that both historical and ideological reasons help to explain the size and approach of his works. In broad terms, we can characterise his method as close reading of texts, the use of multiple texts\r\nand authors, based on lemmata and an overall mixed agenda (pedagogy, philosophy, ideology). At a more detailed level we saw that he is capable of\r\nhandling text variations and different manuscripts, speaks in a self-effacing way (a personal voice is rare), and uses advanced exegetical strategies (majority views important; letter vs. spirit; technical terminology). All these features\r\njustify the conclusion that his work was a synthesis of both philosophical views and their exegetical clarifications. Overall, Simplicius\u2019 aim to annotate Aristotle\u2019s work and preserve Greek philosophy with its exegetical tradition makes for a truly polymathic program driven by different, and sometimes competing, agendas. [conclusion, p. 180]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/A73Tqj9a5m6hmAe","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":326,"full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":655,"section_of":289,"pages":"159-183","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius and the Commentator's Task: Clarifying Exegeses and Exegetical Techniques"]}
Title | Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2010 |
Journal | Antiquorum Philosophial |
Volume | 3 |
Pages | 121-136 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
In this paper, I have made the case for the position that Simplicius is more independent as a philosophical writer than modern scholarship has allowed. As soon as he became used as a source for Presocratic philosophy, attention was deflected from his own contributions to the philosophical debate. In broad terms, Simplicius remains loyal to his teachers, but it would be wrong to see him as a mindless copyist or a slavish collector of doxai. This means that there is room for changing our view of him. Late Platonism may have formed a united front, but this does not preclude critical reading and assessment of previous views and disagreements among themselves. I have attempted to illustrate the extent to which Simplicius found fault with and criticized his fellow Platonists and other commentators. That this was not always done by head-on confrontation may be explained by the historical situation he found himself in: firstly, he had to cope with an immensely learned and copious tradition, a task which he took on with considerable courage and resourcefulness; secondly, he was forced to choose a defensive line of argument with respect to the presentation of pagan philosophy in a world that had been taken over by Christianity. This circumstance contributed importantly to his predicament and the ensuing strategy. As I concluded in my summing up of his methodology: "In trying to defend the Platonist point of view in contradistinction to the Christian outlook, he uses polemic to persuade and refute, and comprehensive exegesis to clarify and proselytize." The extent to which he is seen to dissent would need further confirmation, but the preliminary evidence suggests that it is in proportion to the difficult balancing act forced upon him by his historical position. Philosophically, he is a seventh-generation Platonist since Plotinus taught his new doctrine, and ideologically, he finds himself "surrounded" by an increasingly hostile world. Given the sheer amount of material canvassed and processed, it is a miracle he managed to express a personal view at all. As the works stand, he does so cautiously and judiciously. In his modus operandi, he comes close to the ideal commentator outlined in In Cat. 7.23–32, with the added bonus that he offers quotations to support his arguments. A partial explanation for his "cautious" comments, offered as muted disagreement, could be that criticizing fellow Platonists too strongly might weaken one’s overall position. A final peculiarity also hints at his ability to take a more objective stance: Simplicius occasionally adopts a detached view of the Platonists, referring to them as "the Platonists do this or that," as if he were not to be counted among them. This coincides with his unusually comprehensive scope of source analysis, an approach which was bound to produce tensions and hence difficulties in presenting a unified picture of the philosophical tradition, whether it was meant to be Greek (a wide perspective) or Platonist (a narrow perspective). It can be concluded, therefore, that respect for authority can go hand in hand with criticism and dissent in Simplicius, without jeopardizing the fundamental tenets of Platonism. [conclusion p. 133] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YpEQGyC0xI7815g |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"966","_score":null,"_source":{"id":966,"authors_free":[{"id":1451,"entry_id":966,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority"},"abstract":"In this paper, I have made the case for the position that Simplicius is more independent as a philosophical writer than modern scholarship has allowed. As soon as he became used as a source for Presocratic philosophy, attention was deflected from his own contributions to the philosophical debate. In broad terms, Simplicius remains loyal to his teachers, but it would be wrong to see him as a mindless copyist or a slavish collector of doxai. This means that there is room for changing our view of him. Late Platonism may have formed a united front, but this does not preclude critical reading and assessment of previous views and disagreements among themselves. I have attempted to illustrate the extent to which Simplicius found fault with and criticized his fellow Platonists and other commentators.\r\n\r\nThat this was not always done by head-on confrontation may be explained by the historical situation he found himself in: firstly, he had to cope with an immensely learned and copious tradition, a task which he took on with considerable courage and resourcefulness; secondly, he was forced to choose a defensive line of argument with respect to the presentation of pagan philosophy in a world that had been taken over by Christianity. This circumstance contributed importantly to his predicament and the ensuing strategy. As I concluded in my summing up of his methodology: \"In trying to defend the Platonist point of view in contradistinction to the Christian outlook, he uses polemic to persuade and refute, and comprehensive exegesis to clarify and proselytize.\"\r\n\r\nThe extent to which he is seen to dissent would need further confirmation, but the preliminary evidence suggests that it is in proportion to the difficult balancing act forced upon him by his historical position. Philosophically, he is a seventh-generation Platonist since Plotinus taught his new doctrine, and ideologically, he finds himself \"surrounded\" by an increasingly hostile world. Given the sheer amount of material canvassed and processed, it is a miracle he managed to express a personal view at all. As the works stand, he does so cautiously and judiciously. In his modus operandi, he comes close to the ideal commentator outlined in In Cat. 7.23\u201332, with the added bonus that he offers quotations to support his arguments.\r\n\r\nA partial explanation for his \"cautious\" comments, offered as muted disagreement, could be that criticizing fellow Platonists too strongly might weaken one\u2019s overall position. A final peculiarity also hints at his ability to take a more objective stance: Simplicius occasionally adopts a detached view of the Platonists, referring to them as \"the Platonists do this or that,\" as if he were not to be counted among them. This coincides with his unusually comprehensive scope of source analysis, an approach which was bound to produce tensions and hence difficulties in presenting a unified picture of the philosophical tradition, whether it was meant to be Greek (a wide perspective) or Platonist (a narrow perspective).\r\n\r\nIt can be concluded, therefore, that respect for authority can go hand in hand with criticism and dissent in Simplicius, without jeopardizing the fundamental tenets of Platonism. [conclusion p. 133]","btype":3,"date":"2010","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YpEQGyC0xI7815g","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":966,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Antiquorum Philosophial","volume":"3","issue":"","pages":"121-136"}},"sort":["Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority"]}
Title | Simplicius of Cilicia |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2011 |
Published in | The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II |
Pages | 711-732 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Gerson, Lloyd P. |
Translator(s) |
The few facts we have about Simplicius’ life come from his own works and a few other sources. He came from Cilicia (south-eastern Anatolia), as Agathias tells us (Hist. 2.30). He was educated by Ammonius in Alexandria (fl. 490 CE, cf. In Cael. 26.18–19) and Damascius (fl. 520 CE) in Athens (In Phys. 601.19). Among influential figures on his philosophical outlook are Porphyry, the learned pupil and biographer of Plotinus (245–320), Iamblichus (fl. 300 CE, referred to as "the divine Iamblichus," In Phys. 60.7; 639.23, etc.), and Proclus ("the teacher of my teachers," In Phys. 611.11–12, cf. 795.4–5). The expulsion of Platonists from Athens in 532 CE after Justinian’s ban on pagan teaching ended school activities in 529 CE (Malalas Chronicle 18.47), the cross-references between the extant works, and the lack of evidence after 540 CE suggest that his lifespan roughly spans 480–560 CE. Allusive comments in a discussion of the role of the philosopher in the city in his commentary on Epictetus (In Epict. 32.65.30–9 D., with reference to Plato Rep. 496d) make it probable that he wrote that commentary before the others, while still in Athens, as does his mention of the oppressive situation in Athens (ibid., epilogue). His personal note on friendship (In Epict. 87.39–44/354 Hadot) indicates that he experienced help from friends who looked after his family while he was away, but we cannot establish the nature and date of this event. There has been much debate and speculation about where he might have gone after the trip to Persia with Damascius and other colleagues (531 CE), when the hope of an ideal state under a "philosopher-king," the enlightened ruler Chosroes I (Khusrau), was not fulfilled. However, the issue has not been resolved so far. The treaty of 532 with Justinian apparently had a clause added to guarantee the safety of the pagan philosophers, but it is not easy to see how guarantees could have been given. Simplicius may have stayed in Harran (i.e., Carrhae) in Syria near the border of, and inside, the Persian Empire as a safe haven for non-Christians. Tardieu (1987) has made a strong case to this effect on the basis of references to local features (rafts made of inflated animal skins typical for the Euphrates and different types of calendars found in Harran). The Harranians certainly received special treatment from Chosroes for retaining their paganism (Procopius Wars 2.13.7). Others have suggested he may have returned to Athens and worked there in isolation (Alexandria has been ruled out because of its volatile political conditions). Wherever he was, his richly sourced works suggest he had access to a sizeable library. Tardieu’s further thesis, argued with great ingenuity, that Harran had a continuing presence of a Platonic school into Arabic and medieval times cannot be proven fully beyond the seventh century and has met with objections. The account of their travels by Agathias is clearly biased, and some details of the Persia episode have raised suspicion about this tale of Greek missionary zeal and Persian enlightenment. There are also three epigrams in praise of Simplicius confirming his reputation as rhetor and philosopher (180), acknowledging his elucidations of the Categories (181) and the Physics (182) of Aristotle. Finally, a distich found in a manuscript (codex Ambrosianus 306) confirms his authorship of the In Cat. and seems to have been added by a scribe as an apotropaic since he had accused the "divine Iamblichus" of inconsistency. [introduction p. 711-712] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/PftkJOubxPYtz2C |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"965","_score":null,"_source":{"id":965,"authors_free":[{"id":1449,"entry_id":965,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2091,"entry_id":965,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":46,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","free_first_name":"Lloyd P.","free_last_name":"Gerson","norm_person":{"id":46,"first_name":"Lloyd P.","last_name":"Gerson","full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/131525573","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius of Cilicia","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius of Cilicia"},"abstract":"The few facts we have about Simplicius\u2019 life come from his own works and a few other sources. He came from Cilicia (south-eastern Anatolia), as Agathias tells us (Hist. 2.30). He was educated by Ammonius in Alexandria (fl. 490 CE, cf. In Cael. 26.18\u201319) and Damascius (fl. 520 CE) in Athens (In Phys. 601.19). Among influential figures on his philosophical outlook are Porphyry, the learned pupil and biographer of Plotinus (245\u2013320), Iamblichus (fl. 300 CE, referred to as \"the divine Iamblichus,\" In Phys. 60.7; 639.23, etc.), and Proclus (\"the teacher of my teachers,\" In Phys. 611.11\u201312, cf. 795.4\u20135).\r\n\r\nThe expulsion of Platonists from Athens in 532 CE after Justinian\u2019s ban on pagan teaching ended school activities in 529 CE (Malalas Chronicle 18.47), the cross-references between the extant works, and the lack of evidence after 540 CE suggest that his lifespan roughly spans 480\u2013560 CE. Allusive comments in a discussion of the role of the philosopher in the city in his commentary on Epictetus (In Epict. 32.65.30\u20139 D., with reference to Plato Rep. 496d) make it probable that he wrote that commentary before the others, while still in Athens, as does his mention of the oppressive situation in Athens (ibid., epilogue). His personal note on friendship (In Epict. 87.39\u201344\/354 Hadot) indicates that he experienced help from friends who looked after his family while he was away, but we cannot establish the nature and date of this event.\r\n\r\nThere has been much debate and speculation about where he might have gone after the trip to Persia with Damascius and other colleagues (531 CE), when the hope of an ideal state under a \"philosopher-king,\" the enlightened ruler Chosroes I (Khusrau), was not fulfilled. However, the issue has not been resolved so far. The treaty of 532 with Justinian apparently had a clause added to guarantee the safety of the pagan philosophers, but it is not easy to see how guarantees could have been given. Simplicius may have stayed in Harran (i.e., Carrhae) in Syria near the border of, and inside, the Persian Empire as a safe haven for non-Christians. Tardieu (1987) has made a strong case to this effect on the basis of references to local features (rafts made of inflated animal skins typical for the Euphrates and different types of calendars found in Harran). The Harranians certainly received special treatment from Chosroes for retaining their paganism (Procopius Wars 2.13.7).\r\n\r\nOthers have suggested he may have returned to Athens and worked there in isolation (Alexandria has been ruled out because of its volatile political conditions). Wherever he was, his richly sourced works suggest he had access to a sizeable library. Tardieu\u2019s further thesis, argued with great ingenuity, that Harran had a continuing presence of a Platonic school into Arabic and medieval times cannot be proven fully beyond the seventh century and has met with objections. The account of their travels by Agathias is clearly biased, and some details of the Persia episode have raised suspicion about this tale of Greek missionary zeal and Persian enlightenment.\r\n\r\nThere are also three epigrams in praise of Simplicius confirming his reputation as rhetor and philosopher (180), acknowledging his elucidations of the Categories (181) and the Physics (182) of Aristotle. Finally, a distich found in a manuscript (codex Ambrosianus 306) confirms his authorship of the In Cat. and seems to have been added by a scribe as an apotropaic since he had accused the \"divine Iamblichus\" of inconsistency. [introduction p. 711-712]","btype":2,"date":"2011","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/PftkJOubxPYtz2C","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":46,"full_name":"Gerson, Lloyd P.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":965,"section_of":964,"pages":"711-732","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":964,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Volume II","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Gerson2011","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2011","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2010","abstract":"The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity comprises over forty specially commissioned essays by experts on the philosophy of the period 200\u2013800 CE. Designed as a successor to The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (edited by A. H. Armstrong), it takes into account some forty years of scholarship since the publication of that volume. The contributors examine philosophy as it entered literature, science and religion, and offer new and extensive assessments of philosophers who until recently have been mostly ignored. The volume also includes a complete digest of all philosophical works known to have been written during this period. It will be an invaluable resource for all those interested in this rich and still emerging field. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kHhRvU7UkRlktbW","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":964,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"2","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius of Cilicia"]}
Title | Simplicius of Kilikia |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2008 |
Published in | The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs |
Pages | 743-745 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Keyser, Paul T. , Irby-Massie, Georgia L. |
Translator(s) |
Pupil of Damascius and Ammonius in Alexandria, Simplicius wrote several long commentaries on Aristotle’s works. Upon Justinian’s closure of the school in 529 CE, Simplicius and some colleagues fled to King Chosroes of Persia, reputed for his enlightened rule and interest in philosophy (Agathias, Histories 2.28.1 Keydell). Simplicius most probably wrote his commentaries after 532 (the location is disputed, but he must have had access to a sizeable library given the range of writers he references). He preserves important material from early sources on astronomy and mathematics (Eudemus, Eudoxus) and meteorology (Poseidonius, from Geminus’ summary) and enhances our understanding of ancient physics through Aristotle and other thinkers. With Plotinus, the focus of Platonists became increasingly otherworldly, though without fully rejecting nature. While the physical world was of secondary importance, their analysis of physics remained highly relevant. Their perspective was both religious and philosophical: a deeper understanding of, and respect for, creation was seen as a form of worshiping God and an aid to achieving their ultimate goal, the “return” to God. In explicating Aristotle’s philosophy, Neo-Platonists used commentaries as a vehicle for philosophical and scientific thought, and studying Aristotle served as preparation for studying the works of Plato within the Neo-Platonic curriculum. Simplicius paraphrases and clarifies Aristotle’s dense prose, further developing problems and themes from his own Neo-Platonic perspective, harmonizing Plato and Aristotle whenever possible. His claim that he adds little is partly a topos, partly an expression of respect and acknowledgment of belonging to a tradition; however, this does not exclude originality. On scientific issues, Simplicius believed that advances were being made (e.g., Physics Commentary, Corollary on Place: CAG 9 [1882] 625.2, cf. 795.33-35). He himself significantly altered Aristotle’s cosmological account, incorporating post-Aristotelian reactions both inside and outside the Peripatetic tradition. The rotation of the sphere of fire, for instance, is called “supernatural.” Starting from criticisms by the Peripatetic Xenarchus and a suggestion by Origen (the 3rd-century Platonizing Christian), he reinterprets Aristotle’s theory, making the fifth element (aither) influence the motion of fire, whereas Aristotle considered fire to rotate according to its natural inclination. Simplicius also refers to an objection, found in Alexander of Aphrodisias, that the rotation of transparent spheres could not explain the occasional proximity of some planets. Like his teacher Ammonius, he transformed Aristotle’s thinking-god into a creator-god (following Plato’s Timaeus). He famously polemicized against Philoponus on the eternity of the world. Contributions to the Concepts of Time and Place His most original contributions concern time and place. On place, which Aristotle regarded as a two-dimensional surface, Simplicius follows Theophrastus’ criticism, arguing for a dynamic rather than a static concept. Together with Damascius, he ascribes to place the power to arrange the parts of the world, which is viewed as an “organism” with “members.” Iamblichus had already postulated that place holds things together, giving each thing a unique position that moves with it. Simplicius and Damascius maintain that place organizes the world’s members (e.g., Corollary on Place, pp. 636.8-13, 637.25-30), but Simplicius rejects Damascius’ idea that measure—a kind of mold (tupos) into which the organism should fit—determines size and arrangement. Instead, Simplicius argues that each thing has a unique place (idios topos) that moves along with it (Corollary on Place p. 629.8-12). A second excursus (in Book 4 of the Physics Commentary: CAG 9, pp. 773-800) addresses the problem of time. Aristotle had dismissed the paradoxes regarding time’s existence, arguing that since its parts do not exist independently, time itself cannot exist. The Neo-Platonists, however, distinguished between higher and lower time, with the former being “above change” (Iamblichus). The higher kind is immune to paradox, while the lower kind is a stretch of time between two instants. Simplicius reports Damascius’ solution but only agrees that time exists as something that continuously comes into being and is divisible only in thought. In his discussion on the continuum (Physics 6), he adds his own argument: time is infinite, without beginning or end, if viewed as a cycle. Possible Medical Writings Some evidence suggests that Simplicius wrote a commentary on a Hippocratic work. The Fihrist (an Arabic bibliography) mentions a lost work, and Abu Bakr al-Razi (al-Hawi, v. 13, p. 159.9) names Simplicius as a commentator on On Fractures (Peri Agmon), known in Arabic as Kitab al-Kasr or Kitab al-Jabr (“On Setting [Bones]”). [the entire text p. 743-745] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0UokyY5QmcTIDJB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1264","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1264,"authors_free":[{"id":1854,"entry_id":1264,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2094,"entry_id":1264,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":45,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","free_first_name":"Paul T.","free_last_name":"Keyser","norm_person":{"id":45,"first_name":"Paul T. ","last_name":"Keyser","full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1050677153","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2095,"entry_id":1264,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":44,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","free_first_name":"Georgia L.","free_last_name":"Irby-Massie","norm_person":{"id":44,"first_name":"Georgia L.","last_name":"Irby-Massie","full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121145972","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius of Kilikia","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius of Kilikia"},"abstract":"Pupil of Damascius and Ammonius in Alexandria, Simplicius wrote several long commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s works. Upon Justinian\u2019s closure of the school in 529 CE, Simplicius and some colleagues fled to King Chosroes of Persia, reputed for his enlightened rule and interest in philosophy (Agathias, Histories 2.28.1 Keydell). Simplicius most probably wrote his commentaries after 532 (the location is disputed, but he must have had access to a sizeable library given the range of writers he references).\r\n\r\nHe preserves important material from early sources on astronomy and mathematics (Eudemus, Eudoxus) and meteorology (Poseidonius, from Geminus\u2019 summary) and enhances our understanding of ancient physics through Aristotle and other thinkers.\r\n\r\nWith Plotinus, the focus of Platonists became increasingly otherworldly, though without fully rejecting nature. While the physical world was of secondary importance, their analysis of physics remained highly relevant. Their perspective was both religious and philosophical: a deeper understanding of, and respect for, creation was seen as a form of worshiping God and an aid to achieving their ultimate goal, the \u201creturn\u201d to God.\r\n\r\nIn explicating Aristotle\u2019s philosophy, Neo-Platonists used commentaries as a vehicle for philosophical and scientific thought, and studying Aristotle served as preparation for studying the works of Plato within the Neo-Platonic curriculum. Simplicius paraphrases and clarifies Aristotle\u2019s dense prose, further developing problems and themes from his own Neo-Platonic perspective, harmonizing Plato and Aristotle whenever possible. His claim that he adds little is partly a topos, partly an expression of respect and acknowledgment of belonging to a tradition; however, this does not exclude originality.\r\n\r\nOn scientific issues, Simplicius believed that advances were being made (e.g., Physics Commentary, Corollary on Place: CAG 9 [1882] 625.2, cf. 795.33-35). He himself significantly altered Aristotle\u2019s cosmological account, incorporating post-Aristotelian reactions both inside and outside the Peripatetic tradition. The rotation of the sphere of fire, for instance, is called \u201csupernatural.\u201d Starting from criticisms by the Peripatetic Xenarchus and a suggestion by Origen (the 3rd-century Platonizing Christian), he reinterprets Aristotle\u2019s theory, making the fifth element (aither) influence the motion of fire, whereas Aristotle considered fire to rotate according to its natural inclination.\r\n\r\nSimplicius also refers to an objection, found in Alexander of Aphrodisias, that the rotation of transparent spheres could not explain the occasional proximity of some planets. Like his teacher Ammonius, he transformed Aristotle\u2019s thinking-god into a creator-god (following Plato\u2019s Timaeus). He famously polemicized against Philoponus on the eternity of the world.\r\nContributions to the Concepts of Time and Place\r\n\r\nHis most original contributions concern time and place. On place, which Aristotle regarded as a two-dimensional surface, Simplicius follows Theophrastus\u2019 criticism, arguing for a dynamic rather than a static concept. Together with Damascius, he ascribes to place the power to arrange the parts of the world, which is viewed as an \u201corganism\u201d with \u201cmembers.\u201d Iamblichus had already postulated that place holds things together, giving each thing a unique position that moves with it. Simplicius and Damascius maintain that place organizes the world\u2019s members (e.g., Corollary on Place, pp. 636.8-13, 637.25-30), but Simplicius rejects Damascius\u2019 idea that measure\u2014a kind of mold (tupos) into which the organism should fit\u2014determines size and arrangement. Instead, Simplicius argues that each thing has a unique place (idios topos) that moves along with it (Corollary on Place p. 629.8-12).\r\n\r\nA second excursus (in Book 4 of the Physics Commentary: CAG 9, pp. 773-800) addresses the problem of time. Aristotle had dismissed the paradoxes regarding time\u2019s existence, arguing that since its parts do not exist independently, time itself cannot exist. The Neo-Platonists, however, distinguished between higher and lower time, with the former being \u201cabove change\u201d (Iamblichus). The higher kind is immune to paradox, while the lower kind is a stretch of time between two instants. Simplicius reports Damascius\u2019 solution but only agrees that time exists as something that continuously comes into being and is divisible only in thought.\r\n\r\nIn his discussion on the continuum (Physics 6), he adds his own argument: time is infinite, without beginning or end, if viewed as a cycle.\r\nPossible Medical Writings\r\n\r\nSome evidence suggests that Simplicius wrote a commentary on a Hippocratic work. The Fihrist (an Arabic bibliography) mentions a lost work, and Abu Bakr al-Razi (al-Hawi, v. 13, p. 159.9) names Simplicius as a commentator on On Fractures (Peri Agmon), known in Arabic as Kitab al-Kasr or Kitab al-Jabr (\u201cOn Setting [Bones]\u201d). [the entire text p. 743-745]","btype":2,"date":"2008","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0UokyY5QmcTIDJB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":45,"full_name":"Keyser, Paul T. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":44,"full_name":"Irby-Massie, Georgia L.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1264,"section_of":1265,"pages":"743-745","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1265,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientist. The Greek tradition and its many heirs","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Keyser\/Irby-Massie2008","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2008","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists is the first comprehensive English language work to provide a survey of all ancient natural science, from its beginnings through the end of Late Antiquity. A team of over 100 of the world\u2019s experts in the field have compiled this Encyclopedia, including entries which are not mentioned in any other reference work \u2013 resulting in a unique and hugely ambitious resource which will prove indispensable for anyone seeking the details of the history of ancient science.\r\n\r\nAdditional features include a Glossary, Gazetteer, and Time-Line. The Glossary explains many Greek (or Latin) terms difficult to translate, whilst the Gazetteer describes the many locales from which scientists came. The Time-Line shows the rapid rise in the practice of science in the 5th century BCE and rapid decline after Hadrian, due to the centralization of Roman power, with consequent loss of a context within which science could flourish. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/up8tW1NBxVY23yX","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1265,"pubplace":"London \u2013 New York","publisher":"Routledge","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":{"id":1264,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists","volume":"","issue":"","pages":"743-745"}},"sort":["Simplicius of Kilikia"]}
Title | Simplicius on elements and causes in Greek philosophy: critical appraisal or philosophical synthesis? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2015 |
Published in | Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity |
Pages | 111-128 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Marmodoro, Anna , Prince, Brian |
Translator(s) |
One of Simplicius’ contributions on causes in the commentaries, as has been pointed out recently, is that he clarifies the use of ‘principle,’ ‘cause,’ and ‘element’ in Aristotle and disagrees with the notion that they can be used interchangeably. His overall exegesis becomes quite distinctive by incorporating many more views from previous exegetes into his textual analysis than one would think necessary. A good example comes at In physicorum libris 19.21–20.2, where Alexander is quoted as saying that Aristotle may be referring to axioms (axiomata) when speaking about general descriptions of principles (ta koina). Simplicius disagrees: he seems to think that we acquire knowledge of the principles through observation. That the problematic nature of the ‘elements’ requires further attention is clear from Simplicius’ analysis of Aristotle’s Physics A, the book dedicated to a review of earlier theories on principles. My aim in this chapter is to examine Simplicius’ technique of composition and how it helps structure his evaluative comments. Such an investigation will clarify how his remarkably inclusive selection procedure seeks to draw on whatever sources he thinks useful for his purpose. In past studies, some of Simplicius’ own views on principles and causes in natural philosophy have been stated with considerable clarity and acumen. In response to Aristotle’s text, he will, directly or indirectly, declare his own position regarding the nature and knowledge of principles and causes. He analyzes Aristotle’s ideas on elements, matter, and their relationship with reference to Aristotle’s corpus, to Plato, or by applying Neoplatonic ideas. These analyses are often based on his famous essays on place and time (In phys. 4), where Simplicius’ own views are clearly stated. By contrast, it is not so easy to separate out views from his discursive evaluations, and scholars often make assumptions about the relative value of the materials encountered—the different ‘sources,’ so to speak, which he selected and gave a place in his account. [introduction p. 111-112] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/g1SyUqDyUcBATre |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"912","_score":null,"_source":{"id":912,"authors_free":[{"id":1343,"entry_id":912,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2089,"entry_id":912,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":47,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","free_first_name":"Anna","free_last_name":"Marmodoro","norm_person":{"id":47,"first_name":"Anna","last_name":"Marmodoro","full_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1043592326","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2090,"entry_id":912,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":48,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Prince, Brian","free_first_name":"Brian","free_last_name":"Prince","norm_person":{"id":48,"first_name":"Brian","last_name":"Prince","full_name":"Prince, Brian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius on elements and causes in Greek philosophy: critical appraisal or philosophical synthesis?","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius on elements and causes in Greek philosophy: critical appraisal or philosophical synthesis?"},"abstract":"One of Simplicius\u2019 contributions on causes in the commentaries, as has been pointed out recently, is that he clarifies the use of \u2018principle,\u2019 \u2018cause,\u2019 and \u2018element\u2019 in Aristotle and disagrees with the notion that they can be used interchangeably. His overall exegesis becomes quite distinctive by incorporating many more views from previous exegetes into his textual analysis than one would think necessary. A good example comes at In physicorum libris 19.21\u201320.2, where Alexander is quoted as saying that Aristotle may be referring to axioms (axiomata) when speaking about general descriptions of principles (ta koina). Simplicius disagrees: he seems to think that we acquire knowledge of the principles through observation. That the problematic nature of the \u2018elements\u2019 requires further attention is clear from Simplicius\u2019 analysis of Aristotle\u2019s Physics A, the book dedicated to a review of earlier theories on principles.\r\n\r\nMy aim in this chapter is to examine Simplicius\u2019 technique of composition and how it helps structure his evaluative comments. Such an investigation will clarify how his remarkably inclusive selection procedure seeks to draw on whatever sources he thinks useful for his purpose. In past studies, some of Simplicius\u2019 own views on principles and causes in natural philosophy have been stated with considerable clarity and acumen. In response to Aristotle\u2019s text, he will, directly or indirectly, declare his own position regarding the nature and knowledge of principles and causes. He analyzes Aristotle\u2019s ideas on elements, matter, and their relationship with reference to Aristotle\u2019s corpus, to Plato, or by applying Neoplatonic ideas. These analyses are often based on his famous essays on place and time (In phys. 4), where Simplicius\u2019 own views are clearly stated. By contrast, it is not so easy to separate out views from his discursive evaluations, and scholars often make assumptions about the relative value of the materials encountered\u2014the different \u2018sources,\u2019 so to speak, which he selected and gave a place in his account. [introduction p. 111-112]","btype":2,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/g1SyUqDyUcBATre","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":47,"full_name":"Marmodoro, Anna","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":48,"full_name":"Prince, Brian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":912,"section_of":155,"pages":"111-128","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":155,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Causation and Creation in Late Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Marmodoro\/Prince2015","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2015","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2015","abstract":"Written by a group of leading scholars, this unique collection of essays investigates the views of both pagan and Christian philosophers on causation and the creation of the cosmos. Structured in two parts, the volume first looks at divine agency and how late antique thinkers, including the Stoics, Plotinus, Porphyry, Simplicius, Philoponus and Gregory of Nyssa, tackled questions such as: is the cosmos eternal? Did it come from nothing or from something pre-existing? How was it caused to come into existence? Is it material or immaterial? The second part looks at questions concerning human agency and responsibility, including the problem of evil and the nature of will, considering thinkers such as Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus and Augustine. Highlighting some of the most important and interesting aspects of these philosophical debates, the volume will be of great interest to upper-level students and scholars of philosophy, classics, theology and ancient history. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/lpl3CeEXUUAj1hP","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":155,"pubplace":"Cambridge","publisher":"Cambridge University Press","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius on elements and causes in Greek philosophy: critical appraisal or philosophical synthesis?"]}
Title | Simplicius, On Aristotle ‘Physics 1.5–9’ |
Type | Monograph |
Language | English |
Date | 2012 |
Publication Place | London |
Publisher | Bloomsbury |
Series | Ancient Commentators on Aristotle |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | , Simplicius |
Editor(s) | Baltussen, Han , Atkinson, Michael , Share, Michael , Mueller, Ian |
Translator(s) | Baltussen, Han(Baltussen, Han) , Atkinson, M.(Atkinson, Michael ) , Share, Michael (Share, Michael ) , Mueller, Ian(Mueller, Ian) , |
Simplicius' greatest contribution in his commentary on Aristotle on Physics 1.5-9 lies in his treatment of matter. The sixth-century philosopher starts with a valuable elucidation of what Aristotle means by 'principle' and 'element' in Physics. Simplicius' own conception of matter is of a quantity that is utterly diffuse because of its extreme distance from its source, the Neoplatonic One, and he tries to find this conception both in Plato's account of space and in a stray remark of Aristotle's. Finally, Simplicius rejects the Manichaean view that matter is evil and answers a Christian objection that to make matter imperishable is to put it on a level with God. This is the first translation of Simplicius' important work into English. [official abstact] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Pv4w4aOCf88Ez2l |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"124","_score":null,"_source":{"id":124,"authors_free":[{"id":150,"entry_id":124,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":151,"entry_id":124,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":445,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Atkinson, M.","free_first_name":"M.","free_last_name":"Atkinson","norm_person":{"id":445,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Atkinson","full_name":"Atkinson, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":152,"entry_id":124,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":27,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Share, Michael ","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Share","norm_person":{"id":27,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Share","full_name":"Share, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142260010","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":153,"entry_id":124,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2317,"entry_id":124,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":62,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Simplicius ","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":62,"first_name":"Cilicius","last_name":"Simplicius ","full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118642421","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2318,"entry_id":124,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2319,"entry_id":124,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":445,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Atkinson, Michael","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Atkinson","norm_person":{"id":445,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Atkinson","full_name":"Atkinson, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2320,"entry_id":124,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":27,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Share, Michael ","free_first_name":"Michael","free_last_name":"Share","norm_person":{"id":27,"first_name":"Michael","last_name":"Share","full_name":"Share, Michael ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142260010","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2321,"entry_id":124,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":270,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Mueller, Ian","free_first_name":"Ian","free_last_name":"Mueller","norm_person":{"id":270,"first_name":"Ian","last_name":"Mueller","full_name":"Mueller, Ian","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 1.5\u20139\u2019","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 1.5\u20139\u2019"},"abstract":"Simplicius' greatest contribution in his commentary on Aristotle on Physics 1.5-9 lies in his treatment of matter. The sixth-century philosopher starts with a valuable elucidation of what Aristotle means by 'principle' and 'element' in Physics. Simplicius' own conception of matter is of a quantity that is utterly diffuse because of its extreme distance from its source, the Neoplatonic One, and he tries to find this conception both in Plato's account of space and in a stray remark of Aristotle's. Finally, Simplicius rejects the Manichaean view that matter is evil and answers a Christian objection that to make matter imperishable is to put it on a level with God. This is the first translation of Simplicius' important work into English. [official abstact]","btype":1,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Pv4w4aOCf88Ez2l","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":445,"full_name":"Atkinson, Michael ","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":27,"full_name":"Share, Michael ","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":3,"role_name":"translator"}},{"id":62,"full_name":"Simplicius Cilicius","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":445,"full_name":"Atkinson, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":27,"full_name":"Share, Michael ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":270,"full_name":"Mueller, Ian","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":124,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury","series":"Ancient Commentators on Aristotle","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius, On Aristotle \u2018Physics 1.5\u20139\u2019"]}
Title | The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 239-268 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Sellars, J. T. |
Editor(s) | Adamson, Peter , Baltussen, Han , Stone, Martin W. F. |
Translator(s) |
In what follows I offer a bibliographical guide to the ancient commentators on Aristotle, outlining where one may find texts, translations, studies, and more detailed bibliographies containing further references.* It is designed to supplement the existing bibliography in: [l] R. Sorabji, ed., Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence (London: Duckworth, 1990), 485-524. The focus here is on the ancient commentators, but reference will also be made to Byzantine commentators. For a list of around 300 commentators on Aristotle - ancient, Byzantine, Islamic, medieval, and renaissance - see the final pages of [ 2 ] Operum Aristotelis Stagiritae Philosophorum Omnium, ed. I Casaubon (Lugduni, apud Guillelmum Laemarium, 1590). This list is followed by a detailed inventory of individual commentaries arranged by the Aristotelian text upon which they comment. This very useful second list is reprinted in: [3] Aristotelis Opera Omnia quae extant Uno Volumine Comprehensa, ed. C. H. Weise (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1843), 1013-18. Note also the more recent list of ancient commentaries by R. Goulet in D P h A 1,437-41 (1993), now supplemented by M. Chase in DPhA Suppl., 113-21 (2003). [Introduction, p. 239] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RVqUywkJKyTkd5z |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1029","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1029,"authors_free":[{"id":1555,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":299,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sellars, J. T.","free_first_name":"J. T.","free_last_name":"Sellars","norm_person":{"id":299,"first_name":"J. T.","last_name":"Sellars","full_name":"Sellars, J. T.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1011826046","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1556,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1557,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1558,"entry_id":1029,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide","main_title":{"title":"The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide"},"abstract":"In what follows I offer a bibliographical guide to the ancient commentators on Aristotle, \r\noutlining where one may find texts, translations, studies, and more detailed bibliographies \r\ncontaining further references.* It is designed to supplement the existing bibliography in: \r\n[l] R. Sorabji, ed., Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence \r\n(London: Duckworth, 1990), 485-524. \r\nThe focus here is on the ancient commentators, but reference will also be made to \r\nByzantine commentators. For a list of around 300 commentators on Aristotle - ancient, \r\nByzantine, Islamic, medieval, and renaissance - see the final pages of [ 2 ] Operum \r\nAristotelis Stagiritae Philosophorum Omnium, ed. I Casaubon (Lugduni, apud \r\nGuillelmum Laemarium, 1590). This list is followed by a detailed inventory of individual \r\ncommentaries arranged by the Aristotelian text upon which they comment. This very \r\nuseful second list is reprinted in: [3] Aristotelis Opera Omnia quae extant Uno Volumine \r\nComprehensa, ed. C. H. Weise (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1843), 1013-18. Note also the more \r\nrecent list of ancient commentaries by R. Goulet in D P h A 1,437-41 (1993), now \r\nsupplemented by M. Chase in DPhA Suppl., 113-21 (2003). [Introduction, p. 239]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RVqUywkJKyTkd5z","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":299,"full_name":"Sellars, J. T.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1029,"section_of":233,"pages":"239-268","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Aristotelian Commentators: A Bibliographical Guide"]}
Title | The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2005 |
Journal | Studia Humaniora Tartuensia |
Volume | 6 |
Issue | 6 |
Pages | 1-26 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
In this paper I present a synthetic overview of recent and ongoing research in the field of doxography, that is, the study of the nature, transmission and interrelations of sources for ancient Greek philosophy. The latest revisions of the theory of Hermann Diels (Doxographi Graeci 1879) regarding the historiography ought to be known more widely, as they still influence our understanding of the Presocratics and their reception. The scholarly study on the compilations of Greek philosophical views from Hellenistic and later periods has received a major boost by the first of a projected three-volume study by Mansfeld and Runia (1997). Taking their work as a firm basis I also describe my own work in this area and how it can be related to, and fitted into, this trend by outlining how two important sources for the historiography of Greek philosophy, Theo-phrastus (4th–3rd c. BCE) and Simplicius (early 6th c. AD) stand in a special relation to each other and form an important strand in the doxographical tradition. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/OYlxoMJYDjcTIPa |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1201","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1201,"authors_free":[{"id":1774,"entry_id":1201,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research","main_title":{"title":"The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research"},"abstract":"In this paper I present a synthetic overview of recent and ongoing research in the field of doxography, that is, the study of the nature, transmission and interrelations of sources for ancient Greek philosophy. The latest revisions of the theory of Hermann Diels (Doxographi Graeci 1879) regarding the historiography ought to be known more widely, as they still influence our understanding of the Presocratics and their reception. The scholarly study on the compilations of Greek philosophical views from Hellenistic and later periods has received a major boost by the first of a projected three-volume study by Mansfeld and Runia (1997). Taking their work as a firm basis I also describe my own work in this area and how it can be related to, and fitted into, this trend by outlining how two important sources for the historiography of Greek philosophy, Theo-phrastus (4th\u20133rd c. BCE) and Simplicius (early 6th c. AD) stand in a special relation to each other and form an important strand in the doxographical tradition. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2005","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/OYlxoMJYDjcTIPa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1201,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Studia Humaniora Tartuensia","volume":"6","issue":"6","pages":"1-26"}},"sort":["The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research"]}
Title | The κοινη αισθεσις in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2004 |
Published in | Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1 |
Pages | 163-174 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Lautner, Peter |
Editor(s) | Stone, Martin W. F. , Baltussen, Han , Adamson, Peter |
Translator(s) |
I think we can draw the conclusion that, for the commentator, it is the more formal character of the koinê aisthêsis that makes it capable of performing all the tasks that were assigned to it by Aristotle. Pseudo-Simplicius justified this claim by appealing to distinctly Neoplatonic doctrines, such as the formal structure of perceptual judgment: the koinê aisthêsis operates by being present to each particular sense in respect of what they have in common with each other. Again, this is not to posit a sixth sense; the koinê aisthêsis and the particular senses are not different entities. In other words, they are not different faculties, only different activities of the same perceptual system. We can still speak of superiority here, but only superiority in terms of functional priority. That we are not dealing with distinct capacities is well demonstrated by the commentator at 196.4 ff. He claims that the koinê aisthêsis can also perceive color, but only by virtue of sight, just as it can perceive flavor only by virtue of taste. If the koinê aisthêsis and sight were wholly distinct, then we would fall back into the aporia that both Aristotle and Pseudo-Simplicius wished to avoid. The perceptual system as such, or the more formal structure of the whole perceptual system, can grasp the common sensibles, apprehend its own working, and discriminate different sense-objects by an instantaneous act of comprehension. It seems that the koinê aisthêsis emerges as a new activity on the basis of the particular senses. The commentator’s remarks at 196.29-30 corroborate this assumption. On explaining Aristotle’s thesis (De anima 426b10) that the koinê aisthêsis judges the differences in the underlying sense-objects, Pseudo-Simplicius notes that the koinê aisthêsis apprehends all sensory contraries such as white and black, rough and smooth, and does so by transcending them. This does not mean that koinê aisthêsis is transcendent, only that it is further away from the sensible objects. It is prior to the multitude of the particular senses and works together with all of them. This priority is not necessarily temporal; indeed, it is more likely causal, where causality does not imply a relation between two different entities—he may have in mind the relation of the whole to its parts. In any case, we have already seen that the koinê aisthêsis cannot be a cause that exists independently of the particular senses. Our comparison of the views of Proclus and Pseudo-Simplicius on the koinê aisthêsis has yielded two important points. First, the two disagree about the status of the koinê aisthêsis. While Proclus seems to assume that it differs from the particular senses, Pseudo-Simplicius clearly denies that and, under the influence of Alexander of Aphrodisias, claims that there is no sixth sense to perform those functions that were traditionally attributed to the koinê aisthêsis. Proclus’ arguments for his position are not clear from the extant corpus, but those put forward by Pseudo-Simplicius are overwhelmingly Neoplatonic, not Peripatetic. Second, they also disagree about which capacity is responsible for perceptual awareness. Their disagreement is deeply rooted in their respective notions of the human soul. While Pseudo-Simplicius places perceptual awareness firmly within the scope of the perceptual system, Proclus felt the need to postulate a distinct capacity in the rational soul whose role is to be aware of every psychic activity. The difference left its mark on their discussion of the various functions of our perceptual capacities. But the divergence in their vision of the human soul is all the more interesting insofar as they are said to have held much the same views on metaphysics. [conclusion p. 172-173] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/4LJXmhF8cXPYjb4 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1193","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1193,"authors_free":[{"id":1764,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":236,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Lautner, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Lautner","norm_person":{"id":236,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Lautner","full_name":"Lautner, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1157740766","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2064,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":111,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","free_first_name":"Martin W. F.","free_last_name":"Stone","norm_person":{"id":111,"first_name":"Martin W. F.","last_name":"Stone","full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/132001543","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2065,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2066,"entry_id":1193,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":98,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Adamson, Peter","free_first_name":"Peter","free_last_name":"Adamson","norm_person":{"id":98,"first_name":"Peter","last_name":"Adamson","full_name":"Adamson, Peter","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139896104","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius"},"abstract":"I think we can draw the conclusion that, for the commentator, it is the more formal character of the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis that makes it capable of performing all the tasks that were assigned to it by Aristotle. Pseudo-Simplicius justified this claim by appealing to distinctly Neoplatonic doctrines, such as the formal structure of perceptual judgment: the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis operates by being present to each particular sense in respect of what they have in common with each other. Again, this is not to posit a sixth sense; the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis and the particular senses are not different entities. In other words, they are not different faculties, only different activities of the same perceptual system. We can still speak of superiority here, but only superiority in terms of functional priority.\r\n\r\nThat we are not dealing with distinct capacities is well demonstrated by the commentator at 196.4 ff. He claims that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis can also perceive color, but only by virtue of sight, just as it can perceive flavor only by virtue of taste. If the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis and sight were wholly distinct, then we would fall back into the aporia that both Aristotle and Pseudo-Simplicius wished to avoid. The perceptual system as such, or the more formal structure of the whole perceptual system, can grasp the common sensibles, apprehend its own working, and discriminate different sense-objects by an instantaneous act of comprehension.\r\n\r\nIt seems that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis emerges as a new activity on the basis of the particular senses. The commentator\u2019s remarks at 196.29-30 corroborate this assumption. On explaining Aristotle\u2019s thesis (De anima 426b10) that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis judges the differences in the underlying sense-objects, Pseudo-Simplicius notes that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis apprehends all sensory contraries such as white and black, rough and smooth, and does so by transcending them. This does not mean that koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis is transcendent, only that it is further away from the sensible objects. It is prior to the multitude of the particular senses and works together with all of them.\r\n\r\nThis priority is not necessarily temporal; indeed, it is more likely causal, where causality does not imply a relation between two different entities\u2014he may have in mind the relation of the whole to its parts. In any case, we have already seen that the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis cannot be a cause that exists independently of the particular senses.\r\n\r\nOur comparison of the views of Proclus and Pseudo-Simplicius on the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis has yielded two important points. First, the two disagree about the status of the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis. While Proclus seems to assume that it differs from the particular senses, Pseudo-Simplicius clearly denies that and, under the influence of Alexander of Aphrodisias, claims that there is no sixth sense to perform those functions that were traditionally attributed to the koin\u00ea aisth\u00easis. Proclus\u2019 arguments for his position are not clear from the extant corpus, but those put forward by Pseudo-Simplicius are overwhelmingly Neoplatonic, not Peripatetic.\r\n\r\nSecond, they also disagree about which capacity is responsible for perceptual awareness. Their disagreement is deeply rooted in their respective notions of the human soul. While Pseudo-Simplicius places perceptual awareness firmly within the scope of the perceptual system, Proclus felt the need to postulate a distinct capacity in the rational soul whose role is to be aware of every psychic activity. The difference left its mark on their discussion of the various functions of our perceptual capacities. But the divergence in their vision of the human soul is all the more interesting insofar as they are said to have held much the same views on metaphysics. [conclusion p. 172-173]","btype":2,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/4LJXmhF8cXPYjb4","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":236,"full_name":"Lautner, Peter","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":111,"full_name":"Stone, Martin W. F.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":98,"full_name":"Adamson, Peter","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1193,"section_of":233,"pages":"163-174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":233,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries, Volume 1","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Adamson\/Baltussen\/Stone2004","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2004","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2004","abstract":"This two volume Supplement to the Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies represents the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute on 27-29 June, 2002 in honour of Richard Sorabji. These volumes, which are intended to build on the massive achievement of Professor Sorabji\u2019s Ancient Commentators on Aristotle series, focus on the commentary as a vehicle of philosophical and scientific thought. Volume One deals with the Greek tradition, including one paper on Byzantine philosophy and one on the Latin author Calcidius, who is very close to the late Greek tradition in outlook. The volume begins with an overview of the tradition of commenting on Aristotle and of the study of this tradition in the modern era. It concludes with an up-to-date bibliography of scholarship devoted to the commentators.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nqTHgI2QahbENt5","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":233,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Institute of Classical Studies","series":"Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (BICS)","volume":"Supplement 83.1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in Proclus and Ps.-Simplicius"]}
Title | Wehrli’s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius’ Commentary On Aristotle’s Physics |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2002 |
Published in | Eudemus of Rhodes |
Pages | 127-156 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Bodnár, István M. |
Translator(s) |
In this paper, I have provided significant reasons why more work is needed on the material found in Wehrli’s edition of Eudemus of Rhodes (§§1-2, with particular reference to his fragments on physics). I have briefly discussed preliminary questions for a new edition, such as what type of work Eudemus’ Physika was and in what form Simplicius may have consulted it (§3). In addition, I presented twelve additional passages or closing lines to existing testimonia from Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, bringing the total number of named references to Eudemus in Simplicius to around 130. On the basis of the material studied, we can conclude that the added texts do not produce new insights of major importance, as the material is limited and taken from the same source as most of the known texts. However, even if the shorter references (T1–6) should mainly be added to our collection for the sake of completeness, they may also serve as evidence that Simplicius was reading Eudemus’ notes alongside Aristotle’s text. The brevity of such references, it could be argued, shows Simplicius on the lookout for useful comments and adding them whenever they occur. Some of the closing statements, which go beyond the actual quotations, teach us more about Simplicius’ method of demarcating or "bracketing" his quotes and draw attention to certain features of Eudemus’ approach (T2-3, 5, 7). Moreover, we found a few details that further clarify aspects of Eudemus’ role and method in the exegetical tradition. For instance, in T1, Simplicius formulates objections against both Eudemus and Alexander, whereas he usually prefers the former to the latter. In T2 and T7, Eudemus’ importance in clarifying a problem is noted. Obviously, we are here adopting a broader approach toward the study of fragments than has been customary until fairly recently. The longer passages (T7–12) yielded five recurrent "quotations," or at least passages supposedly reporting Eudemus’ words (apart from paratitheatai, I noted verbs such as prographēin, legein). Since they confirm information in similar quotations (e.g., his discussion of Being [T8], of Parmenides [T9], of predication [T10], and on his method regarding Aristotle’s arguments [T12]), it was argued that they should at least be taken into account instead of suppressed or hidden away. The duplication of material can, in itself, be informative about the value of it for our assessment of the surviving material. Finally, I suggested that a probable reason for the transmission of Eudemian material was its value as an exegetical aid to ancient commentators. Simplicius almost treats Eudemus as a "colleague" who also aimed at clarifying Aristotle’s difficult prose (see quote from Wehrli, above, note 18). The higher ratio of references compared to Theophrastus seems to indicate that Eudemus’ clarifications of Aristotle’s thought in physics were regarded as more useful and therefore found their way into later exegetical writings. Blumenthal (p. 10) has expressed the paradox well: "The general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters." Perhaps Simplicius found Eudemus useful as a cure for Aristotle’s unclarity; this would explain the emphasis he puts on Eudemus’ clarity (note the frequency of saphēs) as against Aristotle’s—supposedly intended—obscurity (asapheia, see esp. In Cat. 7.1–22). The unhelpful handling of a small number of references discussed above is only one of several reasons to re-evaluate the method and form of Wehrli’s edition today. We have become more aware than ever that editing fragments is not a cut-and-paste operation but a difficult and complex exercise that needs to take several contexts into account. In this particular case, editing passages as fragmentary bits of text lifted out of their context is perhaps impossible in the tradition in which Simplicius’ prose often does not allow us to lift a text out of its context without losing important information regarding the motives, intentions, and overall argument of the source author. As soon as the thoughts and words of a cited author become deeply embedded in the fabric of the immediate context, we need to be as well-informed as possible about the source author. There are many unpredictable contingencies in the transmission of earlier thought, and common-sense tactics such as leaving out "redundant" duplicate passages may backfire. Therefore, it makes sense for each case to be tested on its own merits. These considerations show Wehrli’s edition to be the product of an outdated method, and it is hoped that this essay, together with the obiter dicta culled from reviews (see appendices), will be of use to the next editor of the Eudemian fragments in physics. [conclusion p. 146-149] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nQEtetEDiyq3flk |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"972","_score":null,"_source":{"id":972,"authors_free":[{"id":1465,"entry_id":972,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1466,"entry_id":972,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1467,"entry_id":972,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":6,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","free_first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","free_last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","norm_person":{"id":6,"first_name":"Istv\u00e1n M.","last_name":"Bodn\u00e1r","full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031829717","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Wehrli\u2019s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius\u2019 Commentary On Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"Wehrli\u2019s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius\u2019 Commentary On Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"In this paper, I have provided significant reasons why more work is needed on the material found in Wehrli\u2019s edition of Eudemus of Rhodes (\u00a7\u00a71-2, with particular reference to his fragments on physics). I have briefly discussed preliminary questions for a new edition, such as what type of work Eudemus\u2019 Physika was and in what form Simplicius may have consulted it (\u00a73). In addition, I presented twelve additional passages or closing lines to existing testimonia from Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, bringing the total number of named references to Eudemus in Simplicius to around 130.\r\n\r\nOn the basis of the material studied, we can conclude that the added texts do not produce new insights of major importance, as the material is limited and taken from the same source as most of the known texts. However, even if the shorter references (T1\u20136) should mainly be added to our collection for the sake of completeness, they may also serve as evidence that Simplicius was reading Eudemus\u2019 notes alongside Aristotle\u2019s text. The brevity of such references, it could be argued, shows Simplicius on the lookout for useful comments and adding them whenever they occur. Some of the closing statements, which go beyond the actual quotations, teach us more about Simplicius\u2019 method of demarcating or \"bracketing\" his quotes and draw attention to certain features of Eudemus\u2019 approach (T2-3, 5, 7). Moreover, we found a few details that further clarify aspects of Eudemus\u2019 role and method in the exegetical tradition. For instance, in T1, Simplicius formulates objections against both Eudemus and Alexander, whereas he usually prefers the former to the latter. In T2 and T7, Eudemus\u2019 importance in clarifying a problem is noted.\r\n\r\nObviously, we are here adopting a broader approach toward the study of fragments than has been customary until fairly recently. The longer passages (T7\u201312) yielded five recurrent \"quotations,\" or at least passages supposedly reporting Eudemus\u2019 words (apart from paratitheatai, I noted verbs such as prograph\u0113in, legein). Since they confirm information in similar quotations (e.g., his discussion of Being [T8], of Parmenides [T9], of predication [T10], and on his method regarding Aristotle\u2019s arguments [T12]), it was argued that they should at least be taken into account instead of suppressed or hidden away. The duplication of material can, in itself, be informative about the value of it for our assessment of the surviving material.\r\n\r\nFinally, I suggested that a probable reason for the transmission of Eudemian material was its value as an exegetical aid to ancient commentators. Simplicius almost treats Eudemus as a \"colleague\" who also aimed at clarifying Aristotle\u2019s difficult prose (see quote from Wehrli, above, note 18). The higher ratio of references compared to Theophrastus seems to indicate that Eudemus\u2019 clarifications of Aristotle\u2019s thought in physics were regarded as more useful and therefore found their way into later exegetical writings. Blumenthal (p. 10) has expressed the paradox well: \"The general consensus of the commentators after Themistius seems to have been that Theophrastus was a major figure in the history of philosophy whose opinions could nevertheless be ignored on most matters.\" Perhaps Simplicius found Eudemus useful as a cure for Aristotle\u2019s unclarity; this would explain the emphasis he puts on Eudemus\u2019 clarity (note the frequency of saph\u0113s) as against Aristotle\u2019s\u2014supposedly intended\u2014obscurity (asapheia, see esp. In Cat. 7.1\u201322).\r\n\r\nThe unhelpful handling of a small number of references discussed above is only one of several reasons to re-evaluate the method and form of Wehrli\u2019s edition today. We have become more aware than ever that editing fragments is not a cut-and-paste operation but a difficult and complex exercise that needs to take several contexts into account. In this particular case, editing passages as fragmentary bits of text lifted out of their context is perhaps impossible in the tradition in which Simplicius\u2019 prose often does not allow us to lift a text out of its context without losing important information regarding the motives, intentions, and overall argument of the source author. As soon as the thoughts and words of a cited author become deeply embedded in the fabric of the immediate context, we need to be as well-informed as possible about the source author. There are many unpredictable contingencies in the transmission of earlier thought, and common-sense tactics such as leaving out \"redundant\" duplicate passages may backfire. Therefore, it makes sense for each case to be tested on its own merits.\r\n\r\nThese considerations show Wehrli\u2019s edition to be the product of an outdated method, and it is hoped that this essay, together with the obiter dicta culled from reviews (see appendices), will be of use to the next editor of the Eudemian fragments in physics. [conclusion p. 146-149]","btype":2,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nQEtetEDiyq3flk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":6,"full_name":"Bodn\u00e1r, Istv\u00e1n M.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":972,"section_of":287,"pages":"127-156","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":287,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Eudemus of Rhodes","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh2002","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2002","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2002","abstract":"Eudemus of Rhodes was a pupil of Aristotle in the second half of the fourth century BCE. When Aristotle died, having chosen Theophrastus as his successor, Eudemus returned to Rhodes where it appears he founded his own school. His contributions to logic were significant: he took issue with Aristotle concerning the status of the existential \"is,\" and together with Theophrastus he made important contributions to hypothetical syllogistic and modal logic. He wrote at length on physics, largely following Aristotle, and took an interest in animal behavior. His histories of geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy were of great importance and are responsible for much of what we know of these subjects in earlier times.Volume 11 in the series Rutgers Studies in Classical Humanities is different in that it is composed entirely of articles that discuss Eudemus from a variety of viewpoints. Sixteen scholars representing seven nations have contributed essays to the volume. A special essay by Dimitri Gutas brings together for the first time the Arabic material relating to Eudemus. Other contributors and essays are: Hans B. Gottschalk, \"Eudemus and the Peripatos\"; Tiziano Dorandi, \"Quale aspetto controverso della biografia di Eudemo di Rodi\"; William W. Fortenbaugh, \"Eudemus' Work On Expression\"; Pamela M. Huby, \"Did Aristotle Reply to Eudemus and Theophrastus on Some Logical Issues?\"; Robert Sharples, \"Eudemus Physics: Change, Place and Time\"; Han Baltussen, \"Wehrli's Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius' Commentary on Aristotle's Physics\"; Sylvia Berryman, \"Sumphues and Suneches: Continuity and Coherence in Early Peripatetic Texts\"; Istvbn Bodnbr, \"Eudemus' Unmoved Movers: Fragments 121-123b Wehrli\"; Deborah K. W. Modrak, \"Phantasia, Thought and Science in Eudemus\"; Stephen White, \"Eudemus the Naturalist\"; J orgen Mejer, \"Eudemus and the History of Science\"; Leonid Zhmud, \"Eudemus' History of Mathematics\"; Alan C. Bowen, \"Eudemus' History of Early Greek Astronomy: Two Hypotheses\"; Dmitri Panchenko, \"Eudemus Fr. 145 Wehrli and the Ancient Theories of Lunar Light\"; and Gbbor Betegh, \"On Eudemus Fr. 150 Wehrli.\"\"[Eudemus of Rhodes] marks a substantial progress in our knowledge of Eurdemus. For it enlarges the scope of the information available on this author, highlights the need of, and paves the way to, a new critical edition of the Greek fragments of his works, and provides a clearer view of his life, thought, sources and influence. In all these respects, it represents a necessary complement to Wehrli's edition of Eudemus' fragments.\" -Amos Bertolacci, The Classical BulletinIstvbn Bodnbr is a member of the philosophy department at the Eotvos University in Budapest, where he teaches and does research on ancient philosophy. He has been a junior fellow at the Center for Hellenic Studies and most recently has been an Alexander von Humboldt Stipendiat in Berlin at the Max Plank Institut for Wissenschaftsgeschichte and at the Freie Universitot.William W. Fortenbaugh is professor of classics at Rutgers University. In addition to editing several books in this series, he has written Aristotle on Emotion and Quellen zur Ethik Theophrastus. New is his edition of Theophrastus's treatise On Sweat.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Chi4rYr2xTDiSmY","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":287,"pubplace":"New Jersey","publisher":"Transaction Publisher","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"11","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Wehrli\u2019s Edition of Eudemus of Rhodes: The Physical Fragments from Simplicius\u2019 Commentary On Aristotle\u2019s Physics"]}
Title | § 162. Simplikios |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2018 |
Published in | Die Philosophie der Antike (Band 5: Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike) (= Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike. Band 5/3) |
Pages | 2060-2084 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Horn, Christoph , Riedweg, Christoph , Wyrwa, Dietmar |
Translator(s) |
Der Eintrag bietet eine ausführliche Darstellung von Simplikios, einschließlich einer Diskussion über sein Leben, seine Werke (literarische Tradition, Methodologie, Schriften) und seine Lehren (Erkenntnistheorie, Logik, Ontologie, Ethik und Naturphilosophie). Zudem beleuchtet er Simplikios’ Auseinandersetzung mit dem Manichäismus sowie seine Nachwirkung. Die Übersetzung aus dem Englischen stammt von Andreas Schatzmann. [derived from the entire text] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IKDgE4wXFZKihDY |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"653","_score":null,"_source":{"id":653,"authors_free":[{"id":938,"entry_id":653,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":939,"entry_id":653,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":256,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Horn, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Horn","norm_person":{"id":256,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Horn","full_name":"Horn, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115589406","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":940,"entry_id":653,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":386,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Riedweg, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Riedweg","norm_person":{"id":386,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Riedweg","full_name":"Riedweg, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/111151228","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":941,"entry_id":653,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":387,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Wyrwa, Dietmar","free_first_name":"Dietmar","free_last_name":"Wyrwa","norm_person":{"id":387,"first_name":"Dietmar","last_name":"Wyrwa","full_name":"Wyrwa, Dietmar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/142943592","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u00a7 162. Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"\u00a7 162. Simplikios"},"abstract":"Der Eintrag bietet eine ausf\u00fchrliche Darstellung von Simplikios, einschlie\u00dflich einer Diskussion \u00fcber sein Leben, seine Werke (literarische Tradition, Methodologie, Schriften) und seine Lehren (Erkenntnistheorie, Logik, Ontologie, Ethik und Naturphilosophie). Zudem beleuchtet er Simplikios\u2019 Auseinandersetzung mit dem Manich\u00e4ismus sowie seine Nachwirkung. Die \u00dcbersetzung aus dem Englischen stammt von Andreas Schatzmann. [derived from the entire text]","btype":2,"date":"2018","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IKDgE4wXFZKihDY","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":256,"full_name":"Horn, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":386,"full_name":"Riedweg, Christoph","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":387,"full_name":"Wyrwa, Dietmar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":653,"section_of":288,"pages":"2060-2084","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":288,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Philosophie der Antike (Band 5: Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Sp\u00e4tantike) (= Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike. Band 5\/3)","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Rieweg\/Horn\/Wyrma2018","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2015","abstract":"Mehr als f\u00fcnfzig international auf ihrem Gebiet f\u00fchrende Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler pr\u00e4sentieren in diesem f\u00fcnften und letzten Band der Reihe \u00abDie Philosophie der Antike\u00bb das \u00fcberaus facettenreiche pagane, j\u00fcdische und fr\u00fchchristliche philosophische Erbe der ersten sieben Jahrhunderte nach Christus \u2013 einer Periode, in der die Grundlagen nicht nur der abendl\u00e4ndischen und byzantinischen, sondern auch der islamischen Denktradition gelegt worden sind. Mit den detaillierten und umfassenden Darstellungen, die den neuesten Stand der philosophiegeschichtlichen Forschung reflektieren, zielt das Werk darauf ab, f\u00fcr die Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Sp\u00e4tantike zur ersten Anlaufstelle f\u00fcr Forschende der Altertumswissenschaften, aber auch der Theologie, der Philosophie, der Judaistik und der Islamwissenschaft sowie allgemein der Geisteswissenschaften zu werden.\r\n\r\nDer Disposition liegt die \u00dcberzeugung zugrunde, dass mit der paganen und der j\u00fcdisch-\u00adchristlichen Philosophie nicht etwa zwei gro\u00dfe weltanschauliche Bl\u00f6cke gegeneinander abzugrenzen und somit isoliert zu betrachten sind, sondern dass es angemessener ist, diese in ihrem lebendigen Austausch miteinander darzustellen. Entsprechend wurde f\u00fcr den Bandaufbau ein Mischprinzip gew\u00e4hlt, bei dem die chronologische Folge die zentrale Rolle spielt, zudem aber auch das Lehrer-Sch\u00fcler-Verh\u00e4ltnis, die Schulzugeh\u00f6rigkeit eines Autors und schlie\u00dflich ebenfalls seine religi\u00f6se Orientierung und seine geografische Situierung ber\u00fccksichtigt werden. So gelingt es, die zum Teil \u00fcberraschenden Interdependenzen zwischen Autoren und Schulen, die durchaus religions\u00fcbergreifend festzustellen sind, deutlicher herauszuarbeiten. Die faszinierende, bis heute in unserer Kultur stark nachwirkende Epoche wird auf diese Art \u00e4u\u00dferst plastisch beschrieben und f\u00fcr die Gegenwart erschlossen.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/kuKt9IQVMLlHfbR","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":288,"pubplace":"Basel","publisher":"Schwabe","series":"","volume":"5\/3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["\u00a7 162. Simplikios"]}
Title | “Reputable Opinions” (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2022 |
Published in | Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World |
Pages | 151-174 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
Editor(s) | Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike |
Translator(s) |
[Introduction, p. 8-9: Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius are at the centre of Han Baltussen’s paper in this volume. Starting with Aristotle’s use of earlier opinions and the methodical framework provided by the Topics, Baltussen considers different kinds of collections of doxai (or perhaps of endoxa, which in Aristotle may turn some doxographies rather into “endoxographies”). He argues that a distinction between doxography and endoxography may clarify several aspects regarding the development of the long tradition of doxaidiscussions, inasmuch as it helps to gain insight into the origin of doxography itself and its relation to the early Peripatetic habit of evaluating earlier opinions, i.e. of “applied dialectics.” Seen in this light, Simplicius’ way of reading Aristotle can also be analysed within the framework of his commentaries to elucidate his philosophical agenda and his version of the endoxographical method]. |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/O7CkQ7ov1PzjUz2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1522","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1522,"authors_free":[{"id":2643,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2644,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2645,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u201cReputable Opinions\u201d (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?","main_title":{"title":"\u201cReputable Opinions\u201d (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?"},"abstract":"[Introduction, p. 8-9: Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius are at the centre of Han Baltussen\u2019s paper in this volume. Starting with Aristotle\u2019s use of earlier opinions\r\nand the methodical framework provided by the Topics, Baltussen considers different kinds of collections of doxai (or perhaps of endoxa, which\r\nin Aristotle may turn some doxographies rather into \u201cendoxographies\u201d). He argues that a distinction between doxography and endoxography may clarify several aspects regarding the development of the long tradition of doxaidiscussions, inasmuch as it helps to gain insight into the origin of doxography\r\nitself and its relation to the early Peripatetic habit of evaluating earlier opinions, i.e. of \u201capplied dialectics.\u201d Seen in this light, Simplicius\u2019 way of reading Aristotle can also be analysed within the framework of his commentaries to elucidate his philosophical agenda and his version of the endoxographical method].","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O7CkQ7ov1PzjUz2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1522,"section_of":1521,"pages":"151-174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1521,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Lammer-Jas_2022","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume\u2014the proceedings of a 2018 conference at LMU Munich funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation\u2014brings together, for the first time, experts on Greek, Syriac, and Arabic traditions of doxography. Fourteen contributions provide new insight into state-of-the-art contemporary research on the widespread phenomenon of doxography. Together, they demonstrate how Greek, Syriac, and Arabic forms of doxography share common features and raise related questions that benefit interdisciplinary exchange among colleagues from various disciplines, such as classics, Arabic studies, and the history of philosophy. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XdQoRcGvPjnpUca","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["\u201cReputable Opinions\u201d (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?"]}