Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority, 2010
By: Baltussen, Han
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]

{"_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]}

From Polemic to Exegesis: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary, 2007
By: Baltussen, Han
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]

{"_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]}

Addenda Eudemea, 2006
By: Baltussen, Han
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]

{"_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]}

The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research, 2005
By: Baltussen, Han
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]

{"_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]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1
Addenda Eudemea, 2006
By: Baltussen, Han
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]

{"_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"]}

From Polemic to Exegesis: The Ancient Philosophical Commentary, 2007
By: Baltussen, Han
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]

{"_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"]}

Simplicius and the Subversion of Authority, 2010
By: Baltussen, Han
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]

{"_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"]}

The Presocratics in the doxographical tradition. Sources, controversies, and current research, 2005
By: Baltussen, Han
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]

{"_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"]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1