| Title | Boéthos de Sidon: Exégète d’Aristote et philosophe |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2020 |
| Publication Place | Berlin – Boston |
| Publisher | De Gruyter |
| Series | Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina (CAGB) |
| Volume | 1 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo , Rashed, Marwan |
| Translator(s) |
| Cet ouvrage contient la première collection des fragments conservés, en grec et en arabe, du philosophe péripatéticien Boéthos de Sidon (Ier siècle av. J-C.), ainsi que leur traduction française et un commentaire exhaustif. Les auteurs reconstituent pour la première fois l'œuvre de ce philosophe majeur de l'Antiquité et montrent comment son interprétation d'Aristote et sa critique du platonisme et du stoïcisme ont laissé leur marque sur l'histoire ultérieure de la philosophie. En se fondant sur plus de cinquante textes transmis à ce jour – dont certains, tant en grec qu'en arabe, n'avaient pas encore été pris en compte par les historiens de la philosophie grecque –, Riccardo Chiaradonna et Marwan Rashed reconstituent l'interprétation d'Aristote développée par Boéthos, fondée sur une lecture originale des Catégories et des Analytiques. Tant par les emprunts massifs que lui font Plotin et les commentateurs néoplatoniciens que par le combat auquel se livre Alexandre d'Aphrodise contre son interprétation d'Aristote, Boéthos marque un jalon décisif dans l'histoire de la philosophie. Ce livre est donc un ouvrage indispensable pour les lecteurs intéressés par l'histoire de l'ontologie et de la logique dans l'Antiquité et la tradition aristotélicienne ancienne et médiévale. Cet ouvrage contient la première collection des fragments conservés, en grec et en arabe, du philosophe péripatéticien Boéthos de Sidon (Ier siècle av. J-C.), ainsi que leur traduction française et un commentaire exhaustif. Ce livre est un ouvrage indispensable pour les lecteurs intéressés par l'histoire de l'aristotélisme et, plus généralement, de la philosophie grecque dans son ensemble. [official abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xgEgyCs5u1m2GF6 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1413","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1413,"authors_free":[{"id":2213,"entry_id":1413,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo","free_first_name":"Riccardo","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2214,"entry_id":1413,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Bo\u00e9thos de Sidon: Ex\u00e9g\u00e8te d\u2019Aristote et philosophe","main_title":{"title":"Bo\u00e9thos de Sidon: Ex\u00e9g\u00e8te d\u2019Aristote et philosophe"},"abstract":"Cet ouvrage contient la premi\u00e8re collection des fragments conserv\u00e9s, en grec et en arabe, du philosophe p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticien Bo\u00e9thos de Sidon (Ier si\u00e8cle av. J-C.), ainsi que leur traduction fran\u00e7aise et un commentaire exhaustif. Les auteurs reconstituent pour la premi\u00e8re fois l'\u0153uvre de ce philosophe majeur de l'Antiquit\u00e9 et montrent comment son interpr\u00e9tation d'Aristote et sa critique du platonisme et du sto\u00efcisme ont laiss\u00e9 leur marque sur l'histoire ult\u00e9rieure de la philosophie. En se fondant sur plus de cinquante textes transmis \u00e0 ce jour \u2013 dont certains, tant en grec qu'en arabe, n'avaient pas encore \u00e9t\u00e9 pris en compte par les historiens de la philosophie grecque \u2013, Riccardo Chiaradonna et Marwan Rashed reconstituent l'interpr\u00e9tation d'Aristote d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e par Bo\u00e9thos, fond\u00e9e sur une lecture originale des Cat\u00e9gories et des Analytiques. Tant par les emprunts massifs que lui font Plotin et les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens que par le combat auquel se livre Alexandre d'Aphrodise contre son interpr\u00e9tation d'Aristote, Bo\u00e9thos marque un jalon d\u00e9cisif dans l'histoire de la philosophie. Ce livre est donc un ouvrage indispensable pour les lecteurs int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par l'histoire de l'ontologie et de la logique dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 et la tradition aristot\u00e9licienne ancienne et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale.\r\n\r\nCet ouvrage contient la premi\u00e8re collection des fragments conserv\u00e9s, en grec et en arabe, du philosophe p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticien Bo\u00e9thos de Sidon (Ier si\u00e8cle av. J-C.), ainsi que leur traduction fran\u00e7aise et un commentaire exhaustif. Ce livre est un ouvrage indispensable pour les lecteurs int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par l'histoire de l'aristot\u00e9lisme et, plus g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement, de la philosophie grecque dans son ensemble. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2020","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xgEgyCs5u1m2GF6","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1413,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter ","series":"Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina (CAGB)","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2020]}
| Title | Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Journal | Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medieval |
| Volume | 43 |
| Pages | 13-39 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This paper focuses on Porphyry’s Isagoge against the wider background of debates about genera and the hierarchy of being in early Neoplatonism from Plotinus to Iamblichus. Three works are considered: Porphyry’s Isagoge, Plotinus tripartite treatise On The Genera of Being (VI, 1-3 [42-44]), Iamblichus’ Reply to Porphyry (the so-called De Mysteriis). In addition to this, the discussion focuses on some passages on genus and predication from Porphyry’s and Iamblichus’ lost commentaries on Aristotle’s Categories preserved in Simplicius. In his account of genus, Porphyry draws on Aristotle and apparently claims that an amended version of the genus/species relation is able to express the hierarchy of different levels of being. This view is different from that of Plotinus, who instead argues that intelligible and sensible beings are homonymous, as well as from that of Iamblichus, who rejects the existence of a common genus above intelligible and sensible beings, while emphasising the analogy subsisting between different levels in the hierarchy. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/duFoYG09YhVIWUx |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1523","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1523,"authors_free":[{"id":2647,"entry_id":1523,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo","free_first_name":"Riccardo","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism"},"abstract":"This paper focuses on Porphyry\u2019s Isagoge against the wider background of debates about genera and the hierarchy of being in early Neoplatonism from Plotinus to Iamblichus. Three works are considered: Porphyry\u2019s Isagoge, Plotinus tripartite treatise On The Genera of Being (VI, 1-3 [42-44]), Iamblichus\u2019 Reply to Porphyry (the so-called De Mysteriis). In addition to this, the discussion focuses on some passages on genus and predication from Porphyry\u2019s and\r\nIamblichus\u2019 lost commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s Categories preserved in Simplicius. In his account of genus, Porphyry draws on Aristotle and apparently\r\nclaims that an amended version of the genus\/species relation is able to express the hierarchy of different levels of being. This view is different from that of Plotinus, who instead argues that intelligible and sensible beings are homonymous, as well as from that of Iamblichus, who rejects the existence of a common genus above intelligible and sensible beings, while emphasising the analogy subsisting between different levels in the hierarchy. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/duFoYG09YhVIWUx","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1523,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medieval","volume":"43","issue":"","pages":"13-39"}},"sort":[2018]}
| Title | Catégories et métaphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'exégèse de Catégories 5 |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2017 |
| Published in | Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotéliecienne |
| Pages | 157-179 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo |
| Editor(s) | Balansard, Anne , Jaulin, Annick |
| Translator(s) |
| Nous résumerons ainsi les conclusions de cette étude. Alexandre souscrit à la thèse selon laquelle les particuliers sensibles sont des substances premières par rapport aux genres et aux espèces, mais cela n’implique à ses yeux aucune conséquence particulariste ou nominaliste. La définition des substances premières qu’Aristote présente dans les Catégories est, pour Alexandre, susceptible de s’appliquer à la forme séparée, c’est-à-dire aux Premiers Moteurs. L’existence de formes dans la matière ne contredit pas le critère de substantialité établi dans les Catégories, car la forme est dans un substrat sans pourtant être « dans un sujet » au sens des Catégories. À ces conclusions, il faut ajouter que l’interprétation du enkorōs du traité permet à Alexandre de lire les Catégories de manière intentionnelle et de rattacher ainsi la sémantique de ce traité à son ontologie des natures immanentes. De notre point de vue, Alexandre faisait tout pour intégrer les Catégories à sa métaphysique essentialiste. On ne trouve aucune trace chez lui de l’argument typique des Néoplatoniciens, selon lequel il faut comprendre l’ontologie des Catégories comme une ontologie quoad nos, qui correspond aux apparences phénoménales que reflète notre langage ordinaire (voir, par exemple, Porphyre, In Cat. 91, 5-26). Bien au contraire, Simplicius oppose justement cet argument à la position d’Alexandre : d’abord, Simplicius, suivant Jamblique, suggère qu’Aristote, dans les Catégories, considère les particuliers sensibles comme des substances premières en tant qu’elles sont premières quoad nos. Une fois énoncée cette solution canonique et bien attestée depuis Porphyre, Simplicius s’attaque à Alexandre, qui regardait les individus comme des substances premières par nature et non seulement pour nous (Simplicius, In Cat. 82, 1-32). Comme nous l’avons montré plus haut, Simplicius et sa source ne saisissaient probablement pas l’ontologie de la nature commune qu’Alexandre développait pour défendre sa position. Cependant, d’après ce que nous pouvons reconstruire, Simplicius avait parfaitement compris que, pour Alexandre, les individus sont des substances premières dans le sens le plus plein du terme, et que Dieu est substance dans le sens de la substance individuelle qu’Aristote établit dans les Catégories. Pour Alexandre, la lecture sémantique des Catégories n’avait donc pas pour but de détacher la doctrine des catégories de l’ontologie : bien au contraire, par sa doctrine du enkorōs, Alexandre rattache de manière très étroite la doctrine des catégories à son ontologie essentialiste. Par ailleurs, la lecture sémantique du traité est parmi les éléments invariants qui rattachent Alexandre et son grand adversaire, Boéthos. Tous deux pensent que les Catégories portent sur les mots signifiants. La différence entre ces deux commentateurs se trouve dans la manière de concevoir la signification et dans les présupposés ontologiques qu’ils mettent en œuvre en rapport avec leurs doctrines sémantiques. [conclusion p. 176-177] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xnj3iH0gfOu4Qme |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1270","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1270,"authors_free":[{"id":1861,"entry_id":1270,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","free_first_name":"Riccardo ","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2045,"entry_id":1270,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":447,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Balansard, Anne","free_first_name":"Anne","free_last_name":"Balansard","norm_person":{"id":447,"first_name":"Anne","last_name":"Balansard","full_name":"Balansard, Anne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107922548X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2046,"entry_id":1270,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":448,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jaulin, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Jaulin","norm_person":{"id":448,"first_name":"Annick","last_name":"Jaulin","full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1203571127","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Cat\u00e9gories et m\u00e9taphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Cat\u00e9gories 5","main_title":{"title":"Cat\u00e9gories et m\u00e9taphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Cat\u00e9gories 5"},"abstract":"Nous r\u00e9sumerons ainsi les conclusions de cette \u00e9tude.\r\n\r\nAlexandre souscrit \u00e0 la th\u00e8se selon laquelle les particuliers sensibles sont des substances premi\u00e8res par rapport aux genres et aux esp\u00e8ces, mais cela n\u2019implique \u00e0 ses yeux aucune cons\u00e9quence particulariste ou nominaliste.\r\n\r\nLa d\u00e9finition des substances premi\u00e8res qu\u2019Aristote pr\u00e9sente dans les Cat\u00e9gories est, pour Alexandre, susceptible de s\u2019appliquer \u00e0 la forme s\u00e9par\u00e9e, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire aux Premiers Moteurs.\r\n\r\nL\u2019existence de formes dans la mati\u00e8re ne contredit pas le crit\u00e8re de substantialit\u00e9 \u00e9tabli dans les Cat\u00e9gories, car la forme est dans un substrat sans pourtant \u00eatre \u00ab dans un sujet \u00bb au sens des Cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 ces conclusions, il faut ajouter que l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation du enkor\u014ds du trait\u00e9 permet \u00e0 Alexandre de lire les Cat\u00e9gories de mani\u00e8re intentionnelle et de rattacher ainsi la s\u00e9mantique de ce trait\u00e9 \u00e0 son ontologie des natures immanentes.\r\n\r\nDe notre point de vue, Alexandre faisait tout pour int\u00e9grer les Cat\u00e9gories \u00e0 sa m\u00e9taphysique essentialiste. On ne trouve aucune trace chez lui de l\u2019argument typique des N\u00e9oplatoniciens, selon lequel il faut comprendre l\u2019ontologie des Cat\u00e9gories comme une ontologie quoad nos, qui correspond aux apparences ph\u00e9nom\u00e9nales que refl\u00e8te notre langage ordinaire (voir, par exemple, Porphyre, In Cat. 91, 5-26).\r\n\r\nBien au contraire, Simplicius oppose justement cet argument \u00e0 la position d\u2019Alexandre : d\u2019abord, Simplicius, suivant Jamblique, sugg\u00e8re qu\u2019Aristote, dans les Cat\u00e9gories, consid\u00e8re les particuliers sensibles comme des substances premi\u00e8res en tant qu\u2019elles sont premi\u00e8res quoad nos.\r\n\r\nUne fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9e cette solution canonique et bien attest\u00e9e depuis Porphyre, Simplicius s\u2019attaque \u00e0 Alexandre, qui regardait les individus comme des substances premi\u00e8res par nature et non seulement pour nous (Simplicius, In Cat. 82, 1-32).\r\n\r\nComme nous l\u2019avons montr\u00e9 plus haut, Simplicius et sa source ne saisissaient probablement pas l\u2019ontologie de la nature commune qu\u2019Alexandre d\u00e9veloppait pour d\u00e9fendre sa position. Cependant, d\u2019apr\u00e8s ce que nous pouvons reconstruire, Simplicius avait parfaitement compris que, pour Alexandre, les individus sont des substances premi\u00e8res dans le sens le plus plein du terme, et que Dieu est substance dans le sens de la substance individuelle qu\u2019Aristote \u00e9tablit dans les Cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\nPour Alexandre, la lecture s\u00e9mantique des Cat\u00e9gories n\u2019avait donc pas pour but de d\u00e9tacher la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories de l\u2019ontologie : bien au contraire, par sa doctrine du enkor\u014ds, Alexandre rattache de mani\u00e8re tr\u00e8s \u00e9troite la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories \u00e0 son ontologie essentialiste.\r\n\r\nPar ailleurs, la lecture s\u00e9mantique du trait\u00e9 est parmi les \u00e9l\u00e9ments invariants qui rattachent Alexandre et son grand adversaire, Bo\u00e9thos. Tous deux pensent que les Cat\u00e9gories portent sur les mots signifiants. La diff\u00e9rence entre ces deux commentateurs se trouve dans la mani\u00e8re de concevoir la signification et dans les pr\u00e9suppos\u00e9s ontologiques qu\u2019ils mettent en \u0153uvre en rapport avec leurs doctrines s\u00e9mantiques.\r\n[conclusion p. 176-177]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xnj3iH0gfOu4Qme","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":447,"full_name":"Balansard, Anne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":448,"full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1270,"section_of":273,"pages":"157-179","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":273,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9liecienne","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Balansard-Jaulin_2017","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2017","abstract":"Les neuf \u00e9tudes de ce volume portent sur le Commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique d'Aristote par Alexandre d'Aphrodise, \u00e9crit au tournant des IIe et IIIe si\u00e8cles. Elles ont \u00e9t\u00e9 suscit\u00e9es par le colloque international \"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9licienne\", tenu \u00e0 l'Universit\u00e9 Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne du 22 au 24 juin 2015. La question de la r\u00e9ception est au c\u0153ur de ces \u00e9tudes : r\u00e9ception de la M\u00e9taphysique par Alexandre, r\u00e9ception de son ex\u00e9g\u00e8se par la tradition ult\u00e9rieure. En effet, le commentaire d'Alexandre \u00e9tablit la compr\u00e9hension du texte d'Aristote \u00e0 partir du IIIe si\u00e8cle ; il servira de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 toutes les interpr\u00e9tations ult\u00e9rieures, qu'elles soient n\u00e9oplatoniciennes, arabes ou latines. Ces \u00e9tudes mettent en \u00e9vidence les rapports complexes entre logique, physique, philosophie premi\u00e8re et m\u00eame \u00e9thique, \u00e9tablis par le commentaire d'Alexandre. La question la plus disput\u00e9e est celle de l'usage des Cat\u00e9gories dans le commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique. Les neuf \u00e9tudes ont pour auteurs : Cristina Cerami, Riccardo Chiaradonna, Michel Crubellier, Silvia Fazzo, Pantelis Golitsis, Gweltaz Guyomarc'h, Annick Jaulin, Claire Louguet, Marwan Rashed.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6CJEJ5bTfAFzZdH","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":273,"pubplace":"Leuven \u2013 Paris \u2013 Bristol, CT","publisher":"Peeters","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2017]}
| Title | Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
| Pages | 231-262 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo , Rashed, Marwan , Sedley, David N. |
| Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
| Translator(s) |
| The celebrated Archimedes Palimpsest has turned out to include not only seminal works of Archimedes but also two speeches by Hyperides and—identified as recently as 2005—fourteen pages of an otherwise unknown commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, in a copy written around 900 CE. Even if it contained nothing else, the citations that this last manuscript preserves from named earlier commentators—Andronicus, Boethus, Nicostratus, and Herminus—would be enough to make it an important addition to our knowledge of the Categories tradition. Its new evidence on the first-century BCE Aristotelian Boethus is especially significant. Two of the three citations from him (3,19–22; 14,4–12) probably embody his words more or less verbatim, to judge from the combination of direct speech and peculiarly crabbed language, very unlike the author’s usual style. In addition, the author mentions a group of anonymous commentators already criticized by Boethus, thus giving further unexpected insights into the early reception of Aristotle’s work. But the author’s own contributions are rich and fascinating too. If his date and identity could be established, the new text would make an even greater impact on our present state of understanding. In this article, it will be argued that the new fragment is, to all appearances, a remnant of the most important of all the ancient Categories commentaries, Porphyry’s lost Ad Gedalium. The grounds for such an attribution will be set out in this introduction. There will then follow a translation of the passage, and finally a commentary on the commentary. Our aim is not, in the space of a single article, to settle all the interpretative questions but, on the contrary, to initiate discussion, to develop our proposal regarding authorship, and, above all, to bring the already published text to the attention of interested scholars in the field of ancient philosophy. The commentary consists of seven consecutive folios, recto and verso, each with thirty lines per side and around forty letters per line. For ease of reference, we have renumbered the sides into a simple consecutive run, 1–14. Despite its severely damaged state, it has proved possible to decipher much of the greater part of the text on these fourteen pages. In what follows, we start with a brief description, then turn to the question of authorship. The entire fourteen pages deal, incompletely, with just two consecutive lemmata from the Categories. The passage already under discussion when the text opens is 1a20-b15, a strikingly long lemma, especially given that the same passage is divided into three lemmata by Ammonius and into five by Simplicius. The commentator has by this point already dealt, presumably at some length, with Aristotle’s well-known distinction there between properties that are ‘said of a subject’ and those that are ‘in a subject.’ As the text opens, he is discussing the later part of the lemma, 1b10–15, where Aristotle explains a principle of transitivity according to which when predicate B is said of subject A, and predicate C is said of subject B, then predicate C is said of subject A. Various aspects of this theorem, and problems arising from it, occupy the commentator from 1,1 to 7,8. But he then returns (7,8–9,30) to the opening part of the main lemma, its fourfold division of predicates (1a20-b9), which he presents as applying a neglected Aristotelian method of division, one that can also, as he proceeds to illustrate, be used effectively in the doxographical mapping out of philosophical theories. At 9,30–10,12, we encounter the transition to a new lemma, Categories 1b16–24, where Aristotle explains his thesis that any two different genera, such as animal and knowledge, which are not subordinated one to the other, will normally be divided by two specifically (tôi eidei) different sets of differentiae. The commentator takes the opportunity here to explain the basic vocabulary of genus, species, and differentia, as befits the opening pages of a work that was itself placed first in the Aristotelian corpus. Otherwise, his discussion, as for the preceding lemma, is largely taken up with the resolution of the exegetical problems raised by his predecessors. The Categories was the earliest Aristotelian treatise to attract commentaries and critiques from the first century BCE onwards. The numerous exegetes, of whose work only a small proportion has survived, included not only Aristotelians but also Platonists, Stoics, and others of uncertain philosophical allegiance. The surviving commentaries are in fact all the work of Neoplatonists, starting with the short question-and-answer commentary by Porphyry (third century CE), but they contain plentiful reports of the views of earlier commentators and critics. Since our commentary repeatedly cites previous commentators from the first century BCE to the second century CE but none later than that, we can be confident that it was written in the Roman imperial era, not earlier than the time of Alexander of Aphrodisias (c. 200), whose teacher Herminus is the latest commentator cited, and probably not very much later either. This enables us to set about searching for its author’s identity systematically, since we are fortunate, in the case of this particular Aristotelian treatise, to have from Simplicius (in Cat. 1,9–2,29 Kalbfleisch) a detailed survey of the commentary tradition down to the beginning of the sixth century. [introduction p. 231-233] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/boTHRcfBsw3NuBU |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1535","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1535,"authors_free":[{"id":2675,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2676,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2677,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":298,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sedley, David N.","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":298,"first_name":"David N.","last_name":"Sedley","full_name":"Sedley, David N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12143141X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2678,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus","main_title":{"title":"Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus"},"abstract":"The celebrated Archimedes Palimpsest has turned out to include not only seminal works of Archimedes but also two speeches by Hyperides and\u2014identified as recently as 2005\u2014fourteen pages of an otherwise unknown commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, in a copy written around 900 CE.\r\n\r\nEven if it contained nothing else, the citations that this last manuscript preserves from named earlier commentators\u2014Andronicus, Boethus, Nicostratus, and Herminus\u2014would be enough to make it an important addition to our knowledge of the Categories tradition. Its new evidence on the first-century BCE Aristotelian Boethus is especially significant. Two of the three citations from him (3,19\u201322; 14,4\u201312) probably embody his words more or less verbatim, to judge from the combination of direct speech and peculiarly crabbed language, very unlike the author\u2019s usual style. In addition, the author mentions a group of anonymous commentators already criticized by Boethus, thus giving further unexpected insights into the early reception of Aristotle\u2019s work.\r\n\r\nBut the author\u2019s own contributions are rich and fascinating too. If his date and identity could be established, the new text would make an even greater impact on our present state of understanding. In this article, it will be argued that the new fragment is, to all appearances, a remnant of the most important of all the ancient Categories commentaries, Porphyry\u2019s lost Ad Gedalium.\r\n\r\nThe grounds for such an attribution will be set out in this introduction. There will then follow a translation of the passage, and finally a commentary on the commentary. Our aim is not, in the space of a single article, to settle all the interpretative questions but, on the contrary, to initiate discussion, to develop our proposal regarding authorship, and, above all, to bring the already published text to the attention of interested scholars in the field of ancient philosophy.\r\n\r\nThe commentary consists of seven consecutive folios, recto and verso, each with thirty lines per side and around forty letters per line. For ease of reference, we have renumbered the sides into a simple consecutive run, 1\u201314.\r\n\r\nDespite its severely damaged state, it has proved possible to decipher much of the greater part of the text on these fourteen pages. In what follows, we start with a brief description, then turn to the question of authorship.\r\n\r\nThe entire fourteen pages deal, incompletely, with just two consecutive lemmata from the Categories. The passage already under discussion when the text opens is 1a20-b15, a strikingly long lemma, especially given that the same passage is divided into three lemmata by Ammonius and into five by Simplicius. The commentator has by this point already dealt, presumably at some length, with Aristotle\u2019s well-known distinction there between properties that are \u2018said of a subject\u2019 and those that are \u2018in a subject.\u2019 As the text opens, he is discussing the later part of the lemma, 1b10\u201315, where Aristotle explains a principle of transitivity according to which when predicate B is said of subject A, and predicate C is said of subject B, then predicate C is said of subject A. Various aspects of this theorem, and problems arising from it, occupy the commentator from 1,1 to 7,8. But he then returns (7,8\u20139,30) to the opening part of the main lemma, its fourfold division of predicates (1a20-b9), which he presents as applying a neglected Aristotelian method of division, one that can also, as he proceeds to illustrate, be used effectively in the doxographical mapping out of philosophical theories.\r\n\r\nAt 9,30\u201310,12, we encounter the transition to a new lemma, Categories 1b16\u201324, where Aristotle explains his thesis that any two different genera, such as animal and knowledge, which are not subordinated one to the other, will normally be divided by two specifically (t\u00f4i eidei) different sets of differentiae. The commentator takes the opportunity here to explain the basic vocabulary of genus, species, and differentia, as befits the opening pages of a work that was itself placed first in the Aristotelian corpus. Otherwise, his discussion, as for the preceding lemma, is largely taken up with the resolution of the exegetical problems raised by his predecessors.\r\n\r\nThe Categories was the earliest Aristotelian treatise to attract commentaries and critiques from the first century BCE onwards. The numerous exegetes, of whose work only a small proportion has survived, included not only Aristotelians but also Platonists, Stoics, and others of uncertain philosophical allegiance. The surviving commentaries are in fact all the work of Neoplatonists, starting with the short question-and-answer commentary by Porphyry (third century CE), but they contain plentiful reports of the views of earlier commentators and critics.\r\n\r\nSince our commentary repeatedly cites previous commentators from the first century BCE to the second century CE but none later than that, we can be confident that it was written in the Roman imperial era, not earlier than the time of Alexander of Aphrodisias (c. 200), whose teacher Herminus is the latest commentator cited, and probably not very much later either. This enables us to set about searching for its author\u2019s identity systematically, since we are fortunate, in the case of this particular Aristotelian treatise, to have from Simplicius (in Cat. 1,9\u20132,29 Kalbfleisch) a detailed survey of the commentary tradition down to the beginning of the sixth century.\r\n[introduction p. 231-233]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/boTHRcfBsw3NuBU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":298,"full_name":"Sedley, David N.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1535,"section_of":1419,"pages":"231-262","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
| Title | Autour d'Eudore. Les débuts de l'exégèse des Catégories dans les Moyen Platonisme |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2009 |
| Published in | The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the early empire and their philosophical contexts |
| Pages | 89-111 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo |
| Editor(s) | Bonazzi, Mauro , Opsomer, Jan |
| Translator(s) |
| Si l’on se borne à souligner qu’Eudore a critiqué tel ou tel passage des Catégories, on oublie une donnée fondamentale : ses critiques portent sur des détails, mais ne remettent jamais en question la doctrine des catégories comme telle. Son ouvrage (quoi qu’il en soit de ses caractères formels) visait probablement à rattacher les catégories au platonisme pythagorisant, en en corrigeant des éléments ponctuels. C’est pourquoi, me semble-t-il, il n’est pas absurde de supposer qu’Eudore a été à l’origine des différentes tentatives médio-platoniciennes pour incorporer les catégories dans le platonisme : on trouve plusieurs exemples d’une telle attitude, ce qui n’exclut pas la présence de variations importantes, notamment chez le commentateur anonyme du Théétète, chez Alcinous (Did. 159, 43-44) et chez Plutarque. Cette position est manifestement différente de celle d’Atticus, qui ne visait nullement à annexer les catégories au platonisme. L’interprétation d’Eudore n’est pas non plus identique à celle du mystérieux Lucius et de Nicostrate qui, au dire de Simplicius, adressaient toute sorte d’objections extrêmement polémiques aux catégories d’Aristote. Et l’exégèse d’Eudore n’a rien à voir avec la discussion critique des catégories développée par Plotin, qui utilise les apories internes à la doctrine d’Aristote comme une sorte de démonstration dialectique des principes ontologiques « platoniciens ». Il y a une analogie superficielle entre le projet philosophique et idéologique d’Eudore et celui qui, après Plotin, sera développé par Porphyre : Eudore et Porphyre visent à construire, de manière très différente, une tradition philosophique unitaire en subordonnant les doctrines revues et corrigées d’Aristote à leur platonisme. Mais les quelques fragments d’Eudore que nous avons ne suffisent pas à développer ce parallèle ; qui plus est, l’intégration très complexe de l’aristotélisme et du platonisme chez Porphyre se fonde sur l’œuvre des grands auteurs du IIe et du IIIe siècle, notamment Alexandre d’Aphrodise et Plotin ; elle a très peu en commun avec Eudore et son arrière-plan conceptuel. Bref, si nous ne nous sommes pas égarés, il faut conclure que la première réception des catégories d’Aristote dans le platonisme autour d’Eudore est entièrement redevable au contexte précis de la période qui s’étend entre le Ier siècle avant et le Ier siècle après J.-C. S’il y a des éléments de continuité qui rattachent le platonisme de cette époque au platonisme des siècles postérieurs (notamment au platonisme de Plotin et de Porphyre), ce n’est décidément pas dans l’usage des catégories d’Aristote qu’il faut les rechercher. [conclusion p. 107-108] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RwMqNOyFpPRLD09 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1269","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1269,"authors_free":[{"id":1860,"entry_id":1269,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","free_first_name":"Riccardo ","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2041,"entry_id":1269,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":210,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","free_first_name":"Mauro","free_last_name":"Bonazzi","norm_person":{"id":210,"first_name":"Mauro","last_name":"Bonazzi","full_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139388737","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2042,"entry_id":1269,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Autour d'Eudore. Les d\u00e9buts de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se des Cat\u00e9gories dans les Moyen Platonisme","main_title":{"title":"Autour d'Eudore. Les d\u00e9buts de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se des Cat\u00e9gories dans les Moyen Platonisme"},"abstract":"Si l\u2019on se borne \u00e0 souligner qu\u2019Eudore a critiqu\u00e9 tel ou tel passage des Cat\u00e9gories, on oublie une donn\u00e9e fondamentale : ses critiques portent sur des d\u00e9tails, mais ne remettent jamais en question la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories comme telle. Son ouvrage (quoi qu\u2019il en soit de ses caract\u00e8res formels) visait probablement \u00e0 rattacher les cat\u00e9gories au platonisme pythagorisant, en en corrigeant des \u00e9l\u00e9ments ponctuels.\r\n\r\nC\u2019est pourquoi, me semble-t-il, il n\u2019est pas absurde de supposer qu\u2019Eudore a \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019origine des diff\u00e9rentes tentatives m\u00e9dio-platoniciennes pour incorporer les cat\u00e9gories dans le platonisme : on trouve plusieurs exemples d\u2019une telle attitude, ce qui n\u2019exclut pas la pr\u00e9sence de variations importantes, notamment chez le commentateur anonyme du Th\u00e9\u00e9t\u00e8te, chez Alcinous (Did. 159, 43-44) et chez Plutarque.\r\n\r\nCette position est manifestement diff\u00e9rente de celle d\u2019Atticus, qui ne visait nullement \u00e0 annexer les cat\u00e9gories au platonisme. L\u2019interpr\u00e9tation d\u2019Eudore n\u2019est pas non plus identique \u00e0 celle du myst\u00e9rieux Lucius et de Nicostrate qui, au dire de Simplicius, adressaient toute sorte d\u2019objections extr\u00eamement pol\u00e9miques aux cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nEt l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se d\u2019Eudore n\u2019a rien \u00e0 voir avec la discussion critique des cat\u00e9gories d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e par Plotin, qui utilise les apories internes \u00e0 la doctrine d\u2019Aristote comme une sorte de d\u00e9monstration dialectique des principes ontologiques \u00ab platoniciens \u00bb.\r\n\r\nIl y a une analogie superficielle entre le projet philosophique et id\u00e9ologique d\u2019Eudore et celui qui, apr\u00e8s Plotin, sera d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 par Porphyre : Eudore et Porphyre visent \u00e0 construire, de mani\u00e8re tr\u00e8s diff\u00e9rente, une tradition philosophique unitaire en subordonnant les doctrines revues et corrig\u00e9es d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 leur platonisme.\r\n\r\nMais les quelques fragments d\u2019Eudore que nous avons ne suffisent pas \u00e0 d\u00e9velopper ce parall\u00e8le ; qui plus est, l\u2019int\u00e9gration tr\u00e8s complexe de l\u2019aristot\u00e9lisme et du platonisme chez Porphyre se fonde sur l\u2019\u0153uvre des grands auteurs du IIe et du IIIe si\u00e8cle, notamment Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise et Plotin ; elle a tr\u00e8s peu en commun avec Eudore et son arri\u00e8re-plan conceptuel.\r\n\r\nBref, si nous ne nous sommes pas \u00e9gar\u00e9s, il faut conclure que la premi\u00e8re r\u00e9ception des cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote dans le platonisme autour d\u2019Eudore est enti\u00e8rement redevable au contexte pr\u00e9cis de la p\u00e9riode qui s\u2019\u00e9tend entre le Ier si\u00e8cle avant et le Ier si\u00e8cle apr\u00e8s J.-C.\r\n\r\nS\u2019il y a des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de continuit\u00e9 qui rattachent le platonisme de cette \u00e9poque au platonisme des si\u00e8cles post\u00e9rieurs (notamment au platonisme de Plotin et de Porphyre), ce n\u2019est d\u00e9cid\u00e9ment pas dans l\u2019usage des cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote qu\u2019il faut les rechercher.\r\n[conclusion p. 107-108]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RwMqNOyFpPRLD09","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":210,"full_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1269,"section_of":274,"pages":"89-111","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":274,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the early empire and their philosophical contexts","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Bonazzi\/Opsomer2009","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2009","abstract":"From the 1st century BC onwards followers of Plato began to systematize Plato's thought. These attempts went in various directions and were subjected to all kinds of philosophical influences, especially Aristotelian, Stoic, and Pythagorean. The result was a broad variety of Platonisms without orthodoxy. That would only change with Plotinus. This volume, being the fruit of the collaboration among leading scholars in the field, addresses a number of aspects of this period of system building with substantial contributions on Antiochus and Alcinous and their relation to Stoicism; on Pythagoreanising tendencies in Platonism; on Eudorus and the tradition of commentaries on Aristotle's Categories; on the creationism of the Jewish Platonist Philo of Alexandria; on Ammonius, the Egyptian teacher of Plutarch; on Plutarch's discussion of Socrates' guardian spirit. The contributions are in English, French, Italian and German.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DYApTa5lTYcdYSX","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":274,"pubplace":"Louvain \u2013 Namur \u2013 Paris \u2013 Walpole, MA","publisher":"\u00c9ditions Peeters. Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 des \u00e9tudes classique","series":"Collection d'\u00c9tudes Classiques","volume":"23","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2009]}
| Title | Porphyry and Iamblichus on Universals and Synonymous Predication |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2007 |
| Journal | Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale |
| Volume | 18 |
| Pages | 123-140 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Porphyry’s interpretation of Aristotle’s theories of genus and substantial predication is based on two related assumptions: That a clear separation exists between logic and metaphysics (= doctrine of transcendent realities). That there is a close relation between logic and physics. Since Porphyry’s physics is part of his ontology, logic and ontology (i.e., the logic and the ontology of the physical world) stand in close relation with each other. Porphyry only makes very partial references to metaphysics in his logical works. What I have argued is that Porphyry’s conception of genus in the Isagoge reflects the Platonic theory of the hierarchy of beings, since Porphyry presents his genus as an aph’ henos hierarchical relation. This, on the other hand, does not imply that Porphyry’s treatment of genus in the Isagoge refers to transcendent ante rem principles. Porphyry carefully introduces a doctrine in the Isagoge, the complete significance of which emerges in a different context: the ‘Porphyrean tree’ is thus a mere analogon of the Platonic hierarchy of beings. The presence of physical doctrines is far more essential to Porphyry’s views of universals and predication. Physical entities such as bodiless immanent forms provide real correlates for Porphyry’s universal predicates: Aristotle’s substantial predication ‘mirrors’ the relation between a particular and its immanent form. Physical forms are not outside the scope of logic; rather, they provide the ‘real’ foundation for Porphyry’s views on predication. Such a foundation is presented in an introductory way in Porphyry’s logical writings and is only made explicit in his more ‘systematic’ works. Iamblichus’ attitude is different in that his Platonizing of Aristotle’s logic is more direct and pervasive. Consequently, Iamblichus offers a Platonizing reading of the Aristotelian theory of substantial predication, which refers to ante rem genera and to the metaphysical relation of participation. Iamblichus is well aware that an ante rem form cannot be a universal synonymous predicate of its particular instantiations, and he conceives of substantial predication as a paronymous relation. Neither Porphyry nor Iamblichus believe that an ante rem form can be predicated synonymously of corporeal individuals. [conclusion p. 17-18] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/sra714DdTLHJIcS |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1289","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1289,"authors_free":[{"id":1878,"entry_id":1289,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","free_first_name":"Riccardo ","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyry and Iamblichus on Universals and Synonymous Predication","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry and Iamblichus on Universals and Synonymous Predication"},"abstract":"Porphyry\u2019s interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s theories of genus and substantial predication is based on two related assumptions:\r\n\r\n That a clear separation exists between logic and metaphysics (= doctrine of transcendent realities).\r\n That there is a close relation between logic and physics.\r\n\r\nSince Porphyry\u2019s physics is part of his ontology, logic and ontology (i.e., the logic and the ontology of the physical world) stand in close relation with each other. Porphyry only makes very partial references to metaphysics in his logical works. What I have argued is that Porphyry\u2019s conception of genus in the Isagoge reflects the Platonic theory of the hierarchy of beings, since Porphyry presents his genus as an aph\u2019 henos hierarchical relation. This, on the other hand, does not imply that Porphyry\u2019s treatment of genus in the Isagoge refers to transcendent ante rem principles. Porphyry carefully introduces a doctrine in the Isagoge, the complete significance of which emerges in a different context: the \u2018Porphyrean tree\u2019 is thus a mere analogon of the Platonic hierarchy of beings.\r\n\r\nThe presence of physical doctrines is far more essential to Porphyry\u2019s views of universals and predication. Physical entities such as bodiless immanent forms provide real correlates for Porphyry\u2019s universal predicates: Aristotle\u2019s substantial predication \u2018mirrors\u2019 the relation between a particular and its immanent form. Physical forms are not outside the scope of logic; rather, they provide the \u2018real\u2019 foundation for Porphyry\u2019s views on predication. Such a foundation is presented in an introductory way in Porphyry\u2019s logical writings and is only made explicit in his more \u2018systematic\u2019 works.\r\n\r\nIamblichus\u2019 attitude is different in that his Platonizing of Aristotle\u2019s logic is more direct and pervasive. Consequently, Iamblichus offers a Platonizing reading of the Aristotelian theory of substantial predication, which refers to ante rem genera and to the metaphysical relation of participation. Iamblichus is well aware that an ante rem form cannot be a universal synonymous predicate of its particular instantiations, and he conceives of substantial predication as a paronymous relation. Neither Porphyry nor Iamblichus believe that an ante rem form can be predicated synonymously of corporeal individuals.\r\n[conclusion p. 17-18]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/sra714DdTLHJIcS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1289,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"18","issue":"","pages":"123-140"}},"sort":[2007]}
| Title | Autour d'Eudore. Les débuts de l'exégèse des Catégories dans les Moyen Platonisme |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2009 |
| Published in | The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the early empire and their philosophical contexts |
| Pages | 89-111 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo |
| Editor(s) | Bonazzi, Mauro , Opsomer, Jan |
| Translator(s) |
Si l’on se borne à souligner qu’Eudore a critiqué tel ou tel passage des Catégories, on oublie une donnée fondamentale : ses critiques portent sur des détails, mais ne remettent jamais en question la doctrine des catégories comme telle. Son ouvrage (quoi qu’il en soit de ses caractères formels) visait probablement à rattacher les catégories au platonisme pythagorisant, en en corrigeant des éléments ponctuels. C’est pourquoi, me semble-t-il, il n’est pas absurde de supposer qu’Eudore a été à l’origine des différentes tentatives médio-platoniciennes pour incorporer les catégories dans le platonisme : on trouve plusieurs exemples d’une telle attitude, ce qui n’exclut pas la présence de variations importantes, notamment chez le commentateur anonyme du Théétète, chez Alcinous (Did. 159, 43-44) et chez Plutarque. Cette position est manifestement différente de celle d’Atticus, qui ne visait nullement à annexer les catégories au platonisme. L’interprétation d’Eudore n’est pas non plus identique à celle du mystérieux Lucius et de Nicostrate qui, au dire de Simplicius, adressaient toute sorte d’objections extrêmement polémiques aux catégories d’Aristote. Et l’exégèse d’Eudore n’a rien à voir avec la discussion critique des catégories développée par Plotin, qui utilise les apories internes à la doctrine d’Aristote comme une sorte de démonstration dialectique des principes ontologiques « platoniciens ». Il y a une analogie superficielle entre le projet philosophique et idéologique d’Eudore et celui qui, après Plotin, sera développé par Porphyre : Eudore et Porphyre visent à construire, de manière très différente, une tradition philosophique unitaire en subordonnant les doctrines revues et corrigées d’Aristote à leur platonisme. Mais les quelques fragments d’Eudore que nous avons ne suffisent pas à développer ce parallèle ; qui plus est, l’intégration très complexe de l’aristotélisme et du platonisme chez Porphyre se fonde sur l’œuvre des grands auteurs du IIe et du IIIe siècle, notamment Alexandre d’Aphrodise et Plotin ; elle a très peu en commun avec Eudore et son arrière-plan conceptuel. Bref, si nous ne nous sommes pas égarés, il faut conclure que la première réception des catégories d’Aristote dans le platonisme autour d’Eudore est entièrement redevable au contexte précis de la période qui s’étend entre le Ier siècle avant et le Ier siècle après J.-C. S’il y a des éléments de continuité qui rattachent le platonisme de cette époque au platonisme des siècles postérieurs (notamment au platonisme de Plotin et de Porphyre), ce n’est décidément pas dans l’usage des catégories d’Aristote qu’il faut les rechercher. [conclusion p. 107-108] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/RwMqNOyFpPRLD09 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1269","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1269,"authors_free":[{"id":1860,"entry_id":1269,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","free_first_name":"Riccardo ","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2041,"entry_id":1269,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":210,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","free_first_name":"Mauro","free_last_name":"Bonazzi","norm_person":{"id":210,"first_name":"Mauro","last_name":"Bonazzi","full_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139388737","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2042,"entry_id":1269,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":211,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Opsomer, Jan","free_first_name":"Jan","free_last_name":"Opsomer","norm_person":{"id":211,"first_name":"Jan","last_name":"Opsomer","full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1120966310","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Autour d'Eudore. Les d\u00e9buts de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se des Cat\u00e9gories dans les Moyen Platonisme","main_title":{"title":"Autour d'Eudore. Les d\u00e9buts de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se des Cat\u00e9gories dans les Moyen Platonisme"},"abstract":"Si l\u2019on se borne \u00e0 souligner qu\u2019Eudore a critiqu\u00e9 tel ou tel passage des Cat\u00e9gories, on oublie une donn\u00e9e fondamentale : ses critiques portent sur des d\u00e9tails, mais ne remettent jamais en question la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories comme telle. Son ouvrage (quoi qu\u2019il en soit de ses caract\u00e8res formels) visait probablement \u00e0 rattacher les cat\u00e9gories au platonisme pythagorisant, en en corrigeant des \u00e9l\u00e9ments ponctuels.\r\n\r\nC\u2019est pourquoi, me semble-t-il, il n\u2019est pas absurde de supposer qu\u2019Eudore a \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0 l\u2019origine des diff\u00e9rentes tentatives m\u00e9dio-platoniciennes pour incorporer les cat\u00e9gories dans le platonisme : on trouve plusieurs exemples d\u2019une telle attitude, ce qui n\u2019exclut pas la pr\u00e9sence de variations importantes, notamment chez le commentateur anonyme du Th\u00e9\u00e9t\u00e8te, chez Alcinous (Did. 159, 43-44) et chez Plutarque.\r\n\r\nCette position est manifestement diff\u00e9rente de celle d\u2019Atticus, qui ne visait nullement \u00e0 annexer les cat\u00e9gories au platonisme. L\u2019interpr\u00e9tation d\u2019Eudore n\u2019est pas non plus identique \u00e0 celle du myst\u00e9rieux Lucius et de Nicostrate qui, au dire de Simplicius, adressaient toute sorte d\u2019objections extr\u00eamement pol\u00e9miques aux cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote.\r\n\r\nEt l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se d\u2019Eudore n\u2019a rien \u00e0 voir avec la discussion critique des cat\u00e9gories d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e par Plotin, qui utilise les apories internes \u00e0 la doctrine d\u2019Aristote comme une sorte de d\u00e9monstration dialectique des principes ontologiques \u00ab platoniciens \u00bb.\r\n\r\nIl y a une analogie superficielle entre le projet philosophique et id\u00e9ologique d\u2019Eudore et celui qui, apr\u00e8s Plotin, sera d\u00e9velopp\u00e9 par Porphyre : Eudore et Porphyre visent \u00e0 construire, de mani\u00e8re tr\u00e8s diff\u00e9rente, une tradition philosophique unitaire en subordonnant les doctrines revues et corrig\u00e9es d\u2019Aristote \u00e0 leur platonisme.\r\n\r\nMais les quelques fragments d\u2019Eudore que nous avons ne suffisent pas \u00e0 d\u00e9velopper ce parall\u00e8le ; qui plus est, l\u2019int\u00e9gration tr\u00e8s complexe de l\u2019aristot\u00e9lisme et du platonisme chez Porphyre se fonde sur l\u2019\u0153uvre des grands auteurs du IIe et du IIIe si\u00e8cle, notamment Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise et Plotin ; elle a tr\u00e8s peu en commun avec Eudore et son arri\u00e8re-plan conceptuel.\r\n\r\nBref, si nous ne nous sommes pas \u00e9gar\u00e9s, il faut conclure que la premi\u00e8re r\u00e9ception des cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote dans le platonisme autour d\u2019Eudore est enti\u00e8rement redevable au contexte pr\u00e9cis de la p\u00e9riode qui s\u2019\u00e9tend entre le Ier si\u00e8cle avant et le Ier si\u00e8cle apr\u00e8s J.-C.\r\n\r\nS\u2019il y a des \u00e9l\u00e9ments de continuit\u00e9 qui rattachent le platonisme de cette \u00e9poque au platonisme des si\u00e8cles post\u00e9rieurs (notamment au platonisme de Plotin et de Porphyre), ce n\u2019est d\u00e9cid\u00e9ment pas dans l\u2019usage des cat\u00e9gories d\u2019Aristote qu\u2019il faut les rechercher.\r\n[conclusion p. 107-108]","btype":2,"date":"2009","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/RwMqNOyFpPRLD09","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":210,"full_name":"Bonazzi, Mauro","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":211,"full_name":"Opsomer, Jan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1269,"section_of":274,"pages":"89-111","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":274,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"The Origins of the Platonic System: Platonisms of the early empire and their philosophical contexts","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Bonazzi\/Opsomer2009","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2009","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2009","abstract":"From the 1st century BC onwards followers of Plato began to systematize Plato's thought. These attempts went in various directions and were subjected to all kinds of philosophical influences, especially Aristotelian, Stoic, and Pythagorean. The result was a broad variety of Platonisms without orthodoxy. That would only change with Plotinus. This volume, being the fruit of the collaboration among leading scholars in the field, addresses a number of aspects of this period of system building with substantial contributions on Antiochus and Alcinous and their relation to Stoicism; on Pythagoreanising tendencies in Platonism; on Eudorus and the tradition of commentaries on Aristotle's Categories; on the creationism of the Jewish Platonist Philo of Alexandria; on Ammonius, the Egyptian teacher of Plutarch; on Plutarch's discussion of Socrates' guardian spirit. The contributions are in English, French, Italian and German.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/DYApTa5lTYcdYSX","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":274,"pubplace":"Louvain \u2013 Namur \u2013 Paris \u2013 Walpole, MA","publisher":"\u00c9ditions Peeters. Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 des \u00e9tudes classique","series":"Collection d'\u00c9tudes Classiques","volume":"23","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Autour d'Eudore. Les d\u00e9buts de l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se des Cat\u00e9gories dans les Moyen Platonisme"]}
| Title | Boéthos de Sidon: Exégète d’Aristote et philosophe |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2020 |
| Publication Place | Berlin – Boston |
| Publisher | De Gruyter |
| Series | Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina (CAGB) |
| Volume | 1 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo , Rashed, Marwan |
| Translator(s) |
Cet ouvrage contient la première collection des fragments conservés, en grec et en arabe, du philosophe péripatéticien Boéthos de Sidon (Ier siècle av. J-C.), ainsi que leur traduction française et un commentaire exhaustif. Les auteurs reconstituent pour la première fois l'œuvre de ce philosophe majeur de l'Antiquité et montrent comment son interprétation d'Aristote et sa critique du platonisme et du stoïcisme ont laissé leur marque sur l'histoire ultérieure de la philosophie. En se fondant sur plus de cinquante textes transmis à ce jour – dont certains, tant en grec qu'en arabe, n'avaient pas encore été pris en compte par les historiens de la philosophie grecque –, Riccardo Chiaradonna et Marwan Rashed reconstituent l'interprétation d'Aristote développée par Boéthos, fondée sur une lecture originale des Catégories et des Analytiques. Tant par les emprunts massifs que lui font Plotin et les commentateurs néoplatoniciens que par le combat auquel se livre Alexandre d'Aphrodise contre son interprétation d'Aristote, Boéthos marque un jalon décisif dans l'histoire de la philosophie. Ce livre est donc un ouvrage indispensable pour les lecteurs intéressés par l'histoire de l'ontologie et de la logique dans l'Antiquité et la tradition aristotélicienne ancienne et médiévale. Cet ouvrage contient la première collection des fragments conservés, en grec et en arabe, du philosophe péripatéticien Boéthos de Sidon (Ier siècle av. J-C.), ainsi que leur traduction française et un commentaire exhaustif. Ce livre est un ouvrage indispensable pour les lecteurs intéressés par l'histoire de l'aristotélisme et, plus généralement, de la philosophie grecque dans son ensemble. [official abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xgEgyCs5u1m2GF6 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1413","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1413,"authors_free":[{"id":2213,"entry_id":1413,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo","free_first_name":"Riccardo","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2214,"entry_id":1413,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"Marwan","free_last_name":"Rashed","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Bo\u00e9thos de Sidon: Ex\u00e9g\u00e8te d\u2019Aristote et philosophe","main_title":{"title":"Bo\u00e9thos de Sidon: Ex\u00e9g\u00e8te d\u2019Aristote et philosophe"},"abstract":"Cet ouvrage contient la premi\u00e8re collection des fragments conserv\u00e9s, en grec et en arabe, du philosophe p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticien Bo\u00e9thos de Sidon (Ier si\u00e8cle av. J-C.), ainsi que leur traduction fran\u00e7aise et un commentaire exhaustif. Les auteurs reconstituent pour la premi\u00e8re fois l'\u0153uvre de ce philosophe majeur de l'Antiquit\u00e9 et montrent comment son interpr\u00e9tation d'Aristote et sa critique du platonisme et du sto\u00efcisme ont laiss\u00e9 leur marque sur l'histoire ult\u00e9rieure de la philosophie. En se fondant sur plus de cinquante textes transmis \u00e0 ce jour \u2013 dont certains, tant en grec qu'en arabe, n'avaient pas encore \u00e9t\u00e9 pris en compte par les historiens de la philosophie grecque \u2013, Riccardo Chiaradonna et Marwan Rashed reconstituent l'interpr\u00e9tation d'Aristote d\u00e9velopp\u00e9e par Bo\u00e9thos, fond\u00e9e sur une lecture originale des Cat\u00e9gories et des Analytiques. Tant par les emprunts massifs que lui font Plotin et les commentateurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens que par le combat auquel se livre Alexandre d'Aphrodise contre son interpr\u00e9tation d'Aristote, Bo\u00e9thos marque un jalon d\u00e9cisif dans l'histoire de la philosophie. Ce livre est donc un ouvrage indispensable pour les lecteurs int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par l'histoire de l'ontologie et de la logique dans l'Antiquit\u00e9 et la tradition aristot\u00e9licienne ancienne et m\u00e9di\u00e9vale.\r\n\r\nCet ouvrage contient la premi\u00e8re collection des fragments conserv\u00e9s, en grec et en arabe, du philosophe p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticien Bo\u00e9thos de Sidon (Ier si\u00e8cle av. J-C.), ainsi que leur traduction fran\u00e7aise et un commentaire exhaustif. Ce livre est un ouvrage indispensable pour les lecteurs int\u00e9ress\u00e9s par l'histoire de l'aristot\u00e9lisme et, plus g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement, de la philosophie grecque dans son ensemble. [official abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2020","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xgEgyCs5u1m2GF6","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1413,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter ","series":"Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina (CAGB)","volume":"1","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Bo\u00e9thos de Sidon: Ex\u00e9g\u00e8te d\u2019Aristote et philosophe"]}
| Title | Catégories et métaphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'exégèse de Catégories 5 |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2017 |
| Published in | Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotéliecienne |
| Pages | 157-179 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo |
| Editor(s) | Balansard, Anne , Jaulin, Annick |
| Translator(s) |
Nous résumerons ainsi les conclusions de cette étude. Alexandre souscrit à la thèse selon laquelle les particuliers sensibles sont des substances premières par rapport aux genres et aux espèces, mais cela n’implique à ses yeux aucune conséquence particulariste ou nominaliste. La définition des substances premières qu’Aristote présente dans les Catégories est, pour Alexandre, susceptible de s’appliquer à la forme séparée, c’est-à-dire aux Premiers Moteurs. L’existence de formes dans la matière ne contredit pas le critère de substantialité établi dans les Catégories, car la forme est dans un substrat sans pourtant être « dans un sujet » au sens des Catégories. À ces conclusions, il faut ajouter que l’interprétation du enkorōs du traité permet à Alexandre de lire les Catégories de manière intentionnelle et de rattacher ainsi la sémantique de ce traité à son ontologie des natures immanentes. De notre point de vue, Alexandre faisait tout pour intégrer les Catégories à sa métaphysique essentialiste. On ne trouve aucune trace chez lui de l’argument typique des Néoplatoniciens, selon lequel il faut comprendre l’ontologie des Catégories comme une ontologie quoad nos, qui correspond aux apparences phénoménales que reflète notre langage ordinaire (voir, par exemple, Porphyre, In Cat. 91, 5-26). Bien au contraire, Simplicius oppose justement cet argument à la position d’Alexandre : d’abord, Simplicius, suivant Jamblique, suggère qu’Aristote, dans les Catégories, considère les particuliers sensibles comme des substances premières en tant qu’elles sont premières quoad nos. Une fois énoncée cette solution canonique et bien attestée depuis Porphyre, Simplicius s’attaque à Alexandre, qui regardait les individus comme des substances premières par nature et non seulement pour nous (Simplicius, In Cat. 82, 1-32). Comme nous l’avons montré plus haut, Simplicius et sa source ne saisissaient probablement pas l’ontologie de la nature commune qu’Alexandre développait pour défendre sa position. Cependant, d’après ce que nous pouvons reconstruire, Simplicius avait parfaitement compris que, pour Alexandre, les individus sont des substances premières dans le sens le plus plein du terme, et que Dieu est substance dans le sens de la substance individuelle qu’Aristote établit dans les Catégories. Pour Alexandre, la lecture sémantique des Catégories n’avait donc pas pour but de détacher la doctrine des catégories de l’ontologie : bien au contraire, par sa doctrine du enkorōs, Alexandre rattache de manière très étroite la doctrine des catégories à son ontologie essentialiste. Par ailleurs, la lecture sémantique du traité est parmi les éléments invariants qui rattachent Alexandre et son grand adversaire, Boéthos. Tous deux pensent que les Catégories portent sur les mots signifiants. La différence entre ces deux commentateurs se trouve dans la manière de concevoir la signification et dans les présupposés ontologiques qu’ils mettent en œuvre en rapport avec leurs doctrines sémantiques. [conclusion p. 176-177] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/xnj3iH0gfOu4Qme |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1270","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1270,"authors_free":[{"id":1861,"entry_id":1270,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","free_first_name":"Riccardo ","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2045,"entry_id":1270,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":447,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Balansard, Anne","free_first_name":"Anne","free_last_name":"Balansard","norm_person":{"id":447,"first_name":"Anne","last_name":"Balansard","full_name":"Balansard, Anne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107922548X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2046,"entry_id":1270,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":448,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jaulin, Annick","free_first_name":"Annick","free_last_name":"Jaulin","norm_person":{"id":448,"first_name":"Annick","last_name":"Jaulin","full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1203571127","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Cat\u00e9gories et m\u00e9taphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Cat\u00e9gories 5","main_title":{"title":"Cat\u00e9gories et m\u00e9taphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Cat\u00e9gories 5"},"abstract":"Nous r\u00e9sumerons ainsi les conclusions de cette \u00e9tude.\r\n\r\nAlexandre souscrit \u00e0 la th\u00e8se selon laquelle les particuliers sensibles sont des substances premi\u00e8res par rapport aux genres et aux esp\u00e8ces, mais cela n\u2019implique \u00e0 ses yeux aucune cons\u00e9quence particulariste ou nominaliste.\r\n\r\nLa d\u00e9finition des substances premi\u00e8res qu\u2019Aristote pr\u00e9sente dans les Cat\u00e9gories est, pour Alexandre, susceptible de s\u2019appliquer \u00e0 la forme s\u00e9par\u00e9e, c\u2019est-\u00e0-dire aux Premiers Moteurs.\r\n\r\nL\u2019existence de formes dans la mati\u00e8re ne contredit pas le crit\u00e8re de substantialit\u00e9 \u00e9tabli dans les Cat\u00e9gories, car la forme est dans un substrat sans pourtant \u00eatre \u00ab dans un sujet \u00bb au sens des Cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\n\u00c0 ces conclusions, il faut ajouter que l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation du enkor\u014ds du trait\u00e9 permet \u00e0 Alexandre de lire les Cat\u00e9gories de mani\u00e8re intentionnelle et de rattacher ainsi la s\u00e9mantique de ce trait\u00e9 \u00e0 son ontologie des natures immanentes.\r\n\r\nDe notre point de vue, Alexandre faisait tout pour int\u00e9grer les Cat\u00e9gories \u00e0 sa m\u00e9taphysique essentialiste. On ne trouve aucune trace chez lui de l\u2019argument typique des N\u00e9oplatoniciens, selon lequel il faut comprendre l\u2019ontologie des Cat\u00e9gories comme une ontologie quoad nos, qui correspond aux apparences ph\u00e9nom\u00e9nales que refl\u00e8te notre langage ordinaire (voir, par exemple, Porphyre, In Cat. 91, 5-26).\r\n\r\nBien au contraire, Simplicius oppose justement cet argument \u00e0 la position d\u2019Alexandre : d\u2019abord, Simplicius, suivant Jamblique, sugg\u00e8re qu\u2019Aristote, dans les Cat\u00e9gories, consid\u00e8re les particuliers sensibles comme des substances premi\u00e8res en tant qu\u2019elles sont premi\u00e8res quoad nos.\r\n\r\nUne fois \u00e9nonc\u00e9e cette solution canonique et bien attest\u00e9e depuis Porphyre, Simplicius s\u2019attaque \u00e0 Alexandre, qui regardait les individus comme des substances premi\u00e8res par nature et non seulement pour nous (Simplicius, In Cat. 82, 1-32).\r\n\r\nComme nous l\u2019avons montr\u00e9 plus haut, Simplicius et sa source ne saisissaient probablement pas l\u2019ontologie de la nature commune qu\u2019Alexandre d\u00e9veloppait pour d\u00e9fendre sa position. Cependant, d\u2019apr\u00e8s ce que nous pouvons reconstruire, Simplicius avait parfaitement compris que, pour Alexandre, les individus sont des substances premi\u00e8res dans le sens le plus plein du terme, et que Dieu est substance dans le sens de la substance individuelle qu\u2019Aristote \u00e9tablit dans les Cat\u00e9gories.\r\n\r\nPour Alexandre, la lecture s\u00e9mantique des Cat\u00e9gories n\u2019avait donc pas pour but de d\u00e9tacher la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories de l\u2019ontologie : bien au contraire, par sa doctrine du enkor\u014ds, Alexandre rattache de mani\u00e8re tr\u00e8s \u00e9troite la doctrine des cat\u00e9gories \u00e0 son ontologie essentialiste.\r\n\r\nPar ailleurs, la lecture s\u00e9mantique du trait\u00e9 est parmi les \u00e9l\u00e9ments invariants qui rattachent Alexandre et son grand adversaire, Bo\u00e9thos. Tous deux pensent que les Cat\u00e9gories portent sur les mots signifiants. La diff\u00e9rence entre ces deux commentateurs se trouve dans la mani\u00e8re de concevoir la signification et dans les pr\u00e9suppos\u00e9s ontologiques qu\u2019ils mettent en \u0153uvre en rapport avec leurs doctrines s\u00e9mantiques.\r\n[conclusion p. 176-177]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/xnj3iH0gfOu4Qme","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":447,"full_name":"Balansard, Anne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":448,"full_name":"Jaulin, Annick","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1270,"section_of":273,"pages":"157-179","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":273,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"fr","title":"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9liecienne","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Balansard-Jaulin_2017","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2017","abstract":"Les neuf \u00e9tudes de ce volume portent sur le Commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique d'Aristote par Alexandre d'Aphrodise, \u00e9crit au tournant des IIe et IIIe si\u00e8cles. Elles ont \u00e9t\u00e9 suscit\u00e9es par le colloque international \"Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la m\u00e9taphysique aristot\u00e9licienne\", tenu \u00e0 l'Universit\u00e9 Paris 1 Panth\u00e9on-Sorbonne du 22 au 24 juin 2015. La question de la r\u00e9ception est au c\u0153ur de ces \u00e9tudes : r\u00e9ception de la M\u00e9taphysique par Alexandre, r\u00e9ception de son ex\u00e9g\u00e8se par la tradition ult\u00e9rieure. En effet, le commentaire d'Alexandre \u00e9tablit la compr\u00e9hension du texte d'Aristote \u00e0 partir du IIIe si\u00e8cle ; il servira de r\u00e9f\u00e9rence \u00e0 toutes les interpr\u00e9tations ult\u00e9rieures, qu'elles soient n\u00e9oplatoniciennes, arabes ou latines. Ces \u00e9tudes mettent en \u00e9vidence les rapports complexes entre logique, physique, philosophie premi\u00e8re et m\u00eame \u00e9thique, \u00e9tablis par le commentaire d'Alexandre. La question la plus disput\u00e9e est celle de l'usage des Cat\u00e9gories dans le commentaire \u00e0 la M\u00e9taphysique. Les neuf \u00e9tudes ont pour auteurs : Cristina Cerami, Riccardo Chiaradonna, Michel Crubellier, Silvia Fazzo, Pantelis Golitsis, Gweltaz Guyomarc'h, Annick Jaulin, Claire Louguet, Marwan Rashed.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/6CJEJ5bTfAFzZdH","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":273,"pubplace":"Leuven \u2013 Paris \u2013 Bristol, CT","publisher":"Peeters","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Cat\u00e9gories et m\u00e9taphysique chez Alexandre d'Aphrodise: l'ex\u00e9g\u00e8se de Cat\u00e9gories 5"]}
| Title | Porphyry and Iamblichus on Universals and Synonymous Predication |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2007 |
| Journal | Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale |
| Volume | 18 |
| Pages | 123-140 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Porphyry’s interpretation of Aristotle’s theories of genus and substantial predication is based on two related assumptions:
That a clear separation exists between logic and metaphysics (= doctrine of transcendent realities).
That there is a close relation between logic and physics.
Since Porphyry’s physics is part of his ontology, logic and ontology (i.e., the logic and the ontology of the physical world) stand in close relation with each other. Porphyry only makes very partial references to metaphysics in his logical works. What I have argued is that Porphyry’s conception of genus in the Isagoge reflects the Platonic theory of the hierarchy of beings, since Porphyry presents his genus as an aph’ henos hierarchical relation. This, on the other hand, does not imply that Porphyry’s treatment of genus in the Isagoge refers to transcendent ante rem principles. Porphyry carefully introduces a doctrine in the Isagoge, the complete significance of which emerges in a different context: the ‘Porphyrean tree’ is thus a mere analogon of the Platonic hierarchy of beings.
The presence of physical doctrines is far more essential to Porphyry’s views of universals and predication. Physical entities such as bodiless immanent forms provide real correlates for Porphyry’s universal predicates: Aristotle’s substantial predication ‘mirrors’ the relation between a particular and its immanent form. Physical forms are not outside the scope of logic; rather, they provide the ‘real’ foundation for Porphyry’s views on predication. Such a foundation is presented in an introductory way in Porphyry’s logical writings and is only made explicit in his more ‘systematic’ works.
Iamblichus’ attitude is different in that his Platonizing of Aristotle’s logic is more direct and pervasive. Consequently, Iamblichus offers a Platonizing reading of the Aristotelian theory of substantial predication, which refers to ante rem genera and to the metaphysical relation of participation. Iamblichus is well aware that an ante rem form cannot be a universal synonymous predicate of its particular instantiations, and he conceives of substantial predication as a paronymous relation. Neither Porphyry nor Iamblichus believe that an ante rem form can be predicated synonymously of corporeal individuals.
[conclusion p. 17-18] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/sra714DdTLHJIcS |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1289","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1289,"authors_free":[{"id":1878,"entry_id":1289,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","free_first_name":"Riccardo ","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyry and Iamblichus on Universals and Synonymous Predication","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry and Iamblichus on Universals and Synonymous Predication"},"abstract":"Porphyry\u2019s interpretation of Aristotle\u2019s theories of genus and substantial predication is based on two related assumptions:\r\n\r\n That a clear separation exists between logic and metaphysics (= doctrine of transcendent realities).\r\n That there is a close relation between logic and physics.\r\n\r\nSince Porphyry\u2019s physics is part of his ontology, logic and ontology (i.e., the logic and the ontology of the physical world) stand in close relation with each other. Porphyry only makes very partial references to metaphysics in his logical works. What I have argued is that Porphyry\u2019s conception of genus in the Isagoge reflects the Platonic theory of the hierarchy of beings, since Porphyry presents his genus as an aph\u2019 henos hierarchical relation. This, on the other hand, does not imply that Porphyry\u2019s treatment of genus in the Isagoge refers to transcendent ante rem principles. Porphyry carefully introduces a doctrine in the Isagoge, the complete significance of which emerges in a different context: the \u2018Porphyrean tree\u2019 is thus a mere analogon of the Platonic hierarchy of beings.\r\n\r\nThe presence of physical doctrines is far more essential to Porphyry\u2019s views of universals and predication. Physical entities such as bodiless immanent forms provide real correlates for Porphyry\u2019s universal predicates: Aristotle\u2019s substantial predication \u2018mirrors\u2019 the relation between a particular and its immanent form. Physical forms are not outside the scope of logic; rather, they provide the \u2018real\u2019 foundation for Porphyry\u2019s views on predication. Such a foundation is presented in an introductory way in Porphyry\u2019s logical writings and is only made explicit in his more \u2018systematic\u2019 works.\r\n\r\nIamblichus\u2019 attitude is different in that his Platonizing of Aristotle\u2019s logic is more direct and pervasive. Consequently, Iamblichus offers a Platonizing reading of the Aristotelian theory of substantial predication, which refers to ante rem genera and to the metaphysical relation of participation. Iamblichus is well aware that an ante rem form cannot be a universal synonymous predicate of its particular instantiations, and he conceives of substantial predication as a paronymous relation. Neither Porphyry nor Iamblichus believe that an ante rem form can be predicated synonymously of corporeal individuals.\r\n[conclusion p. 17-18]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/sra714DdTLHJIcS","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1289,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale","volume":"18","issue":"","pages":"123-140"}},"sort":["Porphyry and Iamblichus on Universals and Synonymous Predication"]}
| Title | Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2018 |
| Journal | Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medieval |
| Volume | 43 |
| Pages | 13-39 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
This paper focuses on Porphyry’s Isagoge against the wider background of debates about genera and the hierarchy of being in early Neoplatonism from Plotinus to Iamblichus. Three works are considered: Porphyry’s Isagoge, Plotinus tripartite treatise On The Genera of Being (VI, 1-3 [42-44]), Iamblichus’ Reply to Porphyry (the so-called De Mysteriis). In addition to this, the discussion focuses on some passages on genus and predication from Porphyry’s and Iamblichus’ lost commentaries on Aristotle’s Categories preserved in Simplicius. In his account of genus, Porphyry draws on Aristotle and apparently claims that an amended version of the genus/species relation is able to express the hierarchy of different levels of being. This view is different from that of Plotinus, who instead argues that intelligible and sensible beings are homonymous, as well as from that of Iamblichus, who rejects the existence of a common genus above intelligible and sensible beings, while emphasising the analogy subsisting between different levels in the hierarchy. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/duFoYG09YhVIWUx |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1523","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1523,"authors_free":[{"id":2647,"entry_id":1523,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo","free_first_name":"Riccardo","free_last_name":"Chiaradonna","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism","main_title":{"title":"Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism"},"abstract":"This paper focuses on Porphyry\u2019s Isagoge against the wider background of debates about genera and the hierarchy of being in early Neoplatonism from Plotinus to Iamblichus. Three works are considered: Porphyry\u2019s Isagoge, Plotinus tripartite treatise On The Genera of Being (VI, 1-3 [42-44]), Iamblichus\u2019 Reply to Porphyry (the so-called De Mysteriis). In addition to this, the discussion focuses on some passages on genus and predication from Porphyry\u2019s and\r\nIamblichus\u2019 lost commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s Categories preserved in Simplicius. In his account of genus, Porphyry draws on Aristotle and apparently\r\nclaims that an amended version of the genus\/species relation is able to express the hierarchy of different levels of being. This view is different from that of Plotinus, who instead argues that intelligible and sensible beings are homonymous, as well as from that of Iamblichus, who rejects the existence of a common genus above intelligible and sensible beings, while emphasising the analogy subsisting between different levels in the hierarchy. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2018","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/duFoYG09YhVIWUx","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1523,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medieval","volume":"43","issue":"","pages":"13-39"}},"sort":["Porphyry's Isagoge and Early Greek Neoplatonism"]}
| Title | Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
| Pages | 231-262 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Chiaradonna, Riccardo , Rashed, Marwan , Sedley, David N. |
| Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
| Translator(s) |
The celebrated Archimedes Palimpsest has turned out to include not only seminal works of Archimedes but also two speeches by Hyperides and—identified as recently as 2005—fourteen pages of an otherwise unknown commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, in a copy written around 900 CE. Even if it contained nothing else, the citations that this last manuscript preserves from named earlier commentators—Andronicus, Boethus, Nicostratus, and Herminus—would be enough to make it an important addition to our knowledge of the Categories tradition. Its new evidence on the first-century BCE Aristotelian Boethus is especially significant. Two of the three citations from him (3,19–22; 14,4–12) probably embody his words more or less verbatim, to judge from the combination of direct speech and peculiarly crabbed language, very unlike the author’s usual style. In addition, the author mentions a group of anonymous commentators already criticized by Boethus, thus giving further unexpected insights into the early reception of Aristotle’s work. But the author’s own contributions are rich and fascinating too. If his date and identity could be established, the new text would make an even greater impact on our present state of understanding. In this article, it will be argued that the new fragment is, to all appearances, a remnant of the most important of all the ancient Categories commentaries, Porphyry’s lost Ad Gedalium. The grounds for such an attribution will be set out in this introduction. There will then follow a translation of the passage, and finally a commentary on the commentary. Our aim is not, in the space of a single article, to settle all the interpretative questions but, on the contrary, to initiate discussion, to develop our proposal regarding authorship, and, above all, to bring the already published text to the attention of interested scholars in the field of ancient philosophy. The commentary consists of seven consecutive folios, recto and verso, each with thirty lines per side and around forty letters per line. For ease of reference, we have renumbered the sides into a simple consecutive run, 1–14. Despite its severely damaged state, it has proved possible to decipher much of the greater part of the text on these fourteen pages. In what follows, we start with a brief description, then turn to the question of authorship. The entire fourteen pages deal, incompletely, with just two consecutive lemmata from the Categories. The passage already under discussion when the text opens is 1a20-b15, a strikingly long lemma, especially given that the same passage is divided into three lemmata by Ammonius and into five by Simplicius. The commentator has by this point already dealt, presumably at some length, with Aristotle’s well-known distinction there between properties that are ‘said of a subject’ and those that are ‘in a subject.’ As the text opens, he is discussing the later part of the lemma, 1b10–15, where Aristotle explains a principle of transitivity according to which when predicate B is said of subject A, and predicate C is said of subject B, then predicate C is said of subject A. Various aspects of this theorem, and problems arising from it, occupy the commentator from 1,1 to 7,8. But he then returns (7,8–9,30) to the opening part of the main lemma, its fourfold division of predicates (1a20-b9), which he presents as applying a neglected Aristotelian method of division, one that can also, as he proceeds to illustrate, be used effectively in the doxographical mapping out of philosophical theories. At 9,30–10,12, we encounter the transition to a new lemma, Categories 1b16–24, where Aristotle explains his thesis that any two different genera, such as animal and knowledge, which are not subordinated one to the other, will normally be divided by two specifically (tôi eidei) different sets of differentiae. The commentator takes the opportunity here to explain the basic vocabulary of genus, species, and differentia, as befits the opening pages of a work that was itself placed first in the Aristotelian corpus. Otherwise, his discussion, as for the preceding lemma, is largely taken up with the resolution of the exegetical problems raised by his predecessors. The Categories was the earliest Aristotelian treatise to attract commentaries and critiques from the first century BCE onwards. The numerous exegetes, of whose work only a small proportion has survived, included not only Aristotelians but also Platonists, Stoics, and others of uncertain philosophical allegiance. The surviving commentaries are in fact all the work of Neoplatonists, starting with the short question-and-answer commentary by Porphyry (third century CE), but they contain plentiful reports of the views of earlier commentators and critics. Since our commentary repeatedly cites previous commentators from the first century BCE to the second century CE but none later than that, we can be confident that it was written in the Roman imperial era, not earlier than the time of Alexander of Aphrodisias (c. 200), whose teacher Herminus is the latest commentator cited, and probably not very much later either. This enables us to set about searching for its author’s identity systematically, since we are fortunate, in the case of this particular Aristotelian treatise, to have from Simplicius (in Cat. 1,9–2,29 Kalbfleisch) a detailed survey of the commentary tradition down to the beginning of the sixth century. [introduction p. 231-233] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/boTHRcfBsw3NuBU |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1535","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1535,"authors_free":[{"id":2675,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":49,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":49,"first_name":"Riccardo ","last_name":"Chiaradonna","full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1142403548","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2676,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":194,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Rashed, Marwan","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":194,"first_name":"Marwan","last_name":"Rashed","full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1054568634","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2677,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":298,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Sedley, David N.","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":298,"first_name":"David N.","last_name":"Sedley","full_name":"Sedley, David N.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/12143141X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2678,"entry_id":1535,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":133,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Sorabji, Richard","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":133,"first_name":"Richard","last_name":"Sorabji","full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/130064165","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus","main_title":{"title":"Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus"},"abstract":"The celebrated Archimedes Palimpsest has turned out to include not only seminal works of Archimedes but also two speeches by Hyperides and\u2014identified as recently as 2005\u2014fourteen pages of an otherwise unknown commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, in a copy written around 900 CE.\r\n\r\nEven if it contained nothing else, the citations that this last manuscript preserves from named earlier commentators\u2014Andronicus, Boethus, Nicostratus, and Herminus\u2014would be enough to make it an important addition to our knowledge of the Categories tradition. Its new evidence on the first-century BCE Aristotelian Boethus is especially significant. Two of the three citations from him (3,19\u201322; 14,4\u201312) probably embody his words more or less verbatim, to judge from the combination of direct speech and peculiarly crabbed language, very unlike the author\u2019s usual style. In addition, the author mentions a group of anonymous commentators already criticized by Boethus, thus giving further unexpected insights into the early reception of Aristotle\u2019s work.\r\n\r\nBut the author\u2019s own contributions are rich and fascinating too. If his date and identity could be established, the new text would make an even greater impact on our present state of understanding. In this article, it will be argued that the new fragment is, to all appearances, a remnant of the most important of all the ancient Categories commentaries, Porphyry\u2019s lost Ad Gedalium.\r\n\r\nThe grounds for such an attribution will be set out in this introduction. There will then follow a translation of the passage, and finally a commentary on the commentary. Our aim is not, in the space of a single article, to settle all the interpretative questions but, on the contrary, to initiate discussion, to develop our proposal regarding authorship, and, above all, to bring the already published text to the attention of interested scholars in the field of ancient philosophy.\r\n\r\nThe commentary consists of seven consecutive folios, recto and verso, each with thirty lines per side and around forty letters per line. For ease of reference, we have renumbered the sides into a simple consecutive run, 1\u201314.\r\n\r\nDespite its severely damaged state, it has proved possible to decipher much of the greater part of the text on these fourteen pages. In what follows, we start with a brief description, then turn to the question of authorship.\r\n\r\nThe entire fourteen pages deal, incompletely, with just two consecutive lemmata from the Categories. The passage already under discussion when the text opens is 1a20-b15, a strikingly long lemma, especially given that the same passage is divided into three lemmata by Ammonius and into five by Simplicius. The commentator has by this point already dealt, presumably at some length, with Aristotle\u2019s well-known distinction there between properties that are \u2018said of a subject\u2019 and those that are \u2018in a subject.\u2019 As the text opens, he is discussing the later part of the lemma, 1b10\u201315, where Aristotle explains a principle of transitivity according to which when predicate B is said of subject A, and predicate C is said of subject B, then predicate C is said of subject A. Various aspects of this theorem, and problems arising from it, occupy the commentator from 1,1 to 7,8. But he then returns (7,8\u20139,30) to the opening part of the main lemma, its fourfold division of predicates (1a20-b9), which he presents as applying a neglected Aristotelian method of division, one that can also, as he proceeds to illustrate, be used effectively in the doxographical mapping out of philosophical theories.\r\n\r\nAt 9,30\u201310,12, we encounter the transition to a new lemma, Categories 1b16\u201324, where Aristotle explains his thesis that any two different genera, such as animal and knowledge, which are not subordinated one to the other, will normally be divided by two specifically (t\u00f4i eidei) different sets of differentiae. The commentator takes the opportunity here to explain the basic vocabulary of genus, species, and differentia, as befits the opening pages of a work that was itself placed first in the Aristotelian corpus. Otherwise, his discussion, as for the preceding lemma, is largely taken up with the resolution of the exegetical problems raised by his predecessors.\r\n\r\nThe Categories was the earliest Aristotelian treatise to attract commentaries and critiques from the first century BCE onwards. The numerous exegetes, of whose work only a small proportion has survived, included not only Aristotelians but also Platonists, Stoics, and others of uncertain philosophical allegiance. The surviving commentaries are in fact all the work of Neoplatonists, starting with the short question-and-answer commentary by Porphyry (third century CE), but they contain plentiful reports of the views of earlier commentators and critics.\r\n\r\nSince our commentary repeatedly cites previous commentators from the first century BCE to the second century CE but none later than that, we can be confident that it was written in the Roman imperial era, not earlier than the time of Alexander of Aphrodisias (c. 200), whose teacher Herminus is the latest commentator cited, and probably not very much later either. This enables us to set about searching for its author\u2019s identity systematically, since we are fortunate, in the case of this particular Aristotelian treatise, to have from Simplicius (in Cat. 1,9\u20132,29 Kalbfleisch) a detailed survey of the commentary tradition down to the beginning of the sixth century.\r\n[introduction p. 231-233]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/boTHRcfBsw3NuBU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":49,"full_name":"Chiaradonna, Riccardo ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":194,"full_name":"Rashed, Marwan","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":298,"full_name":"Sedley, David N.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1535,"section_of":1419,"pages":"231-262","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1419,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Sorabji2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume presents collected essays \u2013 some brand new, some republished, and others newly translated \u2013 on the ancient commentators on Aristotle and showcases the leading research of the last three decades. Through the work and scholarship inspired by Richard Sorabji in his series of translations of the commentators started in the 1980s, these ancient texts have become a key field within ancient philosophy. Building on the strength of the series, which has been hailed as \u2018a scholarly marvel\u2019, \u2018a truly breath-taking achievement\u2019 and \u2018one of the great scholarly achievements of our time\u2019 and on the widely praised edited volume brought out in 1990 (Aristotle Transformed) this new book brings together critical new scholarship that is a must-read for any scholar in the field.\r\n\r\nWith a wide range of contributors from across the globe, the articles look at the commentators themselves, discussing problems of analysis and interpretation that have arisen through close study of the texts. Richard Sorabji introduces the volume and himself contributes two new papers. A key recent area of research has been into the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew versions of texts, and several important essays look in depth at these. With all text translated and transliterated, the volume is accessible to readers without specialist knowledge of Greek or other languages, and should reach a wide audience across the disciplines of Philosophy, Classics and the study of ancient texts. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gZ0ZaTAlMe0PYrI","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1419,"pubplace":"New York","publisher":"Bloomsbury Academic","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Rediscovered Categories Commentary: Porphyry(?) with Fragments of Boethus"]}