| Title | Iamblichus’ Noera Theôria of Aristotle’s Categories |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
| Pages | 313-326 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Dillon, John |
| Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
| Translator(s) |
| It will be seen that it is Iamblichus’ purpose to salvage Aristotle, reconciling him both with his perceived doctrine elsewhere (as, for example, in the Metaphysics and the Physics), and with that of Plato and the Pythagoreans. The aim is to establish a metaphysical framework for the interpretation of the Categories, revealing the hidden levels of truth inherent in it. This is achieved, of course, at the cost of ignoring what seems to us the essentially anti-metaphysical, as well as tentative and exploratory, nature of the Categories, but it would be somewhat anachronistic to condemn Iamblichus too severely for that. The text of the Categories had been a battleground for at least three hundred years before his time, from the period of Andronicus, Ariston, and Eudorus of Alexandria, and the Stoic Apollodorus of Tarsus in the first century BCE, through that of the Platonists Lucius and Nicostratus, and then Atticus, and the Stoic Cornutus, and lastly Alexander of Aphrodisias in the first and second centuries CE, down to Plotinus and Porphyry in his own day, with every phrase and word of the text liable to challenge and requiring defense. Iamblichus’ distinctive contribution is to take the Categories as a coherent description of reality in the Neoplatonic sense, and that, bizarre as it may seem to us, is not really all that more perverse than many of the various ways in which the work had been treated in the centuries before him. [conclusion p. 324-325] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/d9iiR3Sr5aRY9S7 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1533","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1533,"authors_free":[{"id":2671,"entry_id":1533,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2672,"entry_id":1533,"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":"Iamblichus\u2019 Noera The\u00f4ria of Aristotle\u2019s Categories","main_title":{"title":"Iamblichus\u2019 Noera The\u00f4ria of Aristotle\u2019s Categories"},"abstract":"It will be seen that it is Iamblichus\u2019 purpose to salvage Aristotle, reconciling him both with his perceived doctrine elsewhere (as, for example, in the Metaphysics and the Physics), and with that of Plato and the Pythagoreans. The aim is to establish a metaphysical framework for the interpretation of the Categories, revealing the hidden levels of truth inherent in it. This is achieved, of course, at the cost of ignoring what seems to us the essentially anti-metaphysical, as well as tentative and exploratory, nature of the Categories, but it would be somewhat anachronistic to condemn Iamblichus too severely for that. The text of the Categories had been a battleground for at least three hundred years before his time, from the period of Andronicus, Ariston, and Eudorus of Alexandria, and the Stoic Apollodorus of Tarsus in the first century BCE, through that of the Platonists Lucius and Nicostratus, and then Atticus, and the Stoic Cornutus, and lastly Alexander of Aphrodisias in the first and second centuries CE, down to Plotinus and Porphyry in his own day, with every phrase and word of the text liable to challenge and requiring defense. Iamblichus\u2019 distinctive contribution is to take the Categories as a coherent description of reality in the Neoplatonic sense, and that, bizarre as it may seem to us, is not really all that more perverse than many of the various ways in which the work had been treated in the centuries before him. [conclusion p. 324-325]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/d9iiR3Sr5aRY9S7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1533,"section_of":1419,"pages":"313-326","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 | Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2009 |
| Journal | The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition |
| Volume | 3 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 158 –160 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Dillon, John |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This is a most welcome book, by a scholar who has had much to do with Simplicius over the last decade or so, as part of the great Ancient Commentators on Aristotle project, initiated by Richard Sorabji (indeed it is to Sorabji that the book is dedicated). The fruits of this experience are evidenced on more or less every page. As B. remarks, it has not been customary hitherto to focus on the personality or methods of Simplicius himself, as opposed to his value as a source for previous figures, both commentators and original authors, such as the Presocratics—such would have been the attitude of the great Hermann Diels, for example, who edited the Physics Commentary, as well as making so much use of him for his Fragmente der Vorsokratiker and Doxographi Graeci. But undoubtedly, Simplicius merits some attention for himself. The book consists of six chapters, with an introduction and an epilogue. The introduction sets out the parameters of the problem: what should one expect in the way of philosophical attitudes from a late antique Platonist such as Simplicius, and how B. himself proposes to proceed in evaluating him. He emphasises that there are many ways in which this is something of a "work in progress," but he certainly provides enough material to give us a good idea of what Simplicius is up to. Above all, learned though he is, and copiously though he quotes his predecessors, we should not expect Simplicius to be in any anachronistic way an "objective" scholar. He is a Platonist, and his purpose is to assimilate Aristotle (and indeed the Presocratic philosophers) into the Platonist system. Ch. 1, ‘The Scholar and his Books’, introduces us to what is known of Simplicius’ life and education (with Ammonius in Alexandria and Damascius in Athens, in the early decades of the sixth century) and addresses the major problem of the location and circumstances in which he composed his vast commentaries—necessarily after the official closing of the Academy in 529, and the return of the philosophers, of whom he was one, from Persia in 531. The Harran hypothesis of Tardieu runs into the great problem of the availability of source materials in such a relatively outlying place, and B. is inclined to reject it. The alternative is a return to Athens, or possibly Alexandria, where at least there were good libraries. For one salient aspect of Simplicius’ work is his extraordinary range of reading, and his willingness to provide us with verbatim quotations from this, extending from Presocratics such as Parmenides, Melissus, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras, through immediate followers of Aristotle, such as Theophrastus and Eudemus, and then the great second-century A.D. Aristotelian commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias, down to his Neoplatonic predecessors Porphyry, Iamblichus, Syrianus, and Proclus, and his own teacher Damascius. B. devotes separate chapters to each of these categories of predecessor. Ch. 2, ‘Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy? Origins of Ancient Wisdom’, looks at his use of Parmenides, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras in particular, and makes various suggestions about his overall purposes in this. It is certainly notable that Simplicius favours verbatim quotation even of prose authors—in contrast, for example, to such a figure as Proclus, who prefers to paraphrase prose authors at least—but I think that I would rest content with Simplicius’ own explanation (and apologies for over-quotation!), that he was concerned to preserve as much as he could of sources that were becoming increasingly rare in his day. It does not mean that he is not prepared to distort their meaning in a Neoplatonic direction. Ch. 3, ‘Towards a Canon: The Early Peripatetics’, turns to a study of Theophrastus and Eudemus, and in particular their comments on, and adaptations of, Aristotle’s Physics. It is here, I fear, that one begins to realise that this is the sort of book that is best appreciated if one has the original works it is discussing at one’s elbow, as one generally does not—in this case, chiefly Simplicius’ vast Commentary on the Physics. However, B. undoubtedly gives a good account of how Simplicius uses Theophrastus, and particularly Eudemus, whom he actually refers to far more (132 references as against 37!), for the clarification of Aristotle’s doctrine. Ch. 4, ‘Ghost in the Machine? The Role of Alexander of Aphrodisias’, deals with Alexander, who is indeed Simplicius’ chief authority—quoted or mentioned in all fully 1200 times, of which around 700 are in the Physics Commentary. Alexander is, for Simplicius, simply "the commentator," and is of basic importance to him. After giving a useful account of Alexander's own exegetical achievements, B. tries to draw up something of a typology of ways in which he is used by Simplicius (4.3): first, he can be used as simply a helpful source for understanding Aristotle; secondly, he can be quoted and criticised, on a matter of interpretation or doctrine; thirdly, he can be quoted in connection with a variant in the manuscript tradition. Of all these, he gives examples, emphasising how central Alexander is to the whole commentary tradition. Ch. 5, ‘Platonist Commentators: Sources and Inspiration’, takes us through the later Platonist tradition of commentary, with a glance at the Middle Platonists, but focusing chiefly on Porphyry and Iamblichus, and the establishing of the "harmonising" interpretation of Aristotle of which Simplicius is the heir. The use of these Platonist predecessors is particularly notable in the case of the Categories Commentary, but it affects the others as well. Lastly, in Ch. 6, ‘Polemic and Exegesis in Simplicius: Defending Pagan Theology’, he deals with Simplicius’ fierce controversy with his Christian contemporary John Philoponus, as well as with his more civil criticisms of Alexander. The bitterness of his assaults on Philoponus does, as B. argues, bring home to us how far Simplicius is a heroic and tragic figure, trying to preserve and synthesise the whole of the Hellenic (I do wish we could give up the term "pagan"!) philosophical tradition in face of the ever more insistent Christian challenge, and composing his vast commentaries for a now largely imaginary coterie of students. An Epilogue resumes all these findings, and B. appends some useful appendices, including one listing the probable contents of Simplicius’ library, which certainly brings it home to us that these great works of his could not have been composed while wandering about the Syrian desert on the back of a camel. He really must have been back in Athens, with some access to the library of the Platonic School. At any rate, with this study, B. at last gives Simplicius something of his due as a scholar as well as a commentator. [the entire review p. 158-160] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/p1cPjdejj6J9LSt |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"601","_score":null,"_source":{"id":601,"authors_free":[{"id":852,"entry_id":601,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Dillon","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator"},"abstract":"This is a most welcome book, by a scholar who has had much to do with Simplicius over the last decade or so, as part of the great Ancient Commentators on Aristotle project, initiated by Richard Sorabji (indeed it is to Sorabji that the book is dedicated). The fruits of this experience are evidenced on more or less every page. As B. remarks, it has not been customary hitherto to focus on the personality or methods of Simplicius himself, as opposed to his value as a source for previous figures, both commentators and original authors, such as the Presocratics\u2014such would have been the attitude of the great Hermann Diels, for example, who edited the Physics Commentary, as well as making so much use of him for his Fragmente der Vorsokratiker and Doxographi Graeci. But undoubtedly, Simplicius merits some attention for himself.\r\n\r\nThe book consists of six chapters, with an introduction and an epilogue. The introduction sets out the parameters of the problem: what should one expect in the way of philosophical attitudes from a late antique Platonist such as Simplicius, and how B. himself proposes to proceed in evaluating him. He emphasises that there are many ways in which this is something of a \"work in progress,\" but he certainly provides enough material to give us a good idea of what Simplicius is up to. Above all, learned though he is, and copiously though he quotes his predecessors, we should not expect Simplicius to be in any anachronistic way an \"objective\" scholar. He is a Platonist, and his purpose is to assimilate Aristotle (and indeed the Presocratic philosophers) into the Platonist system.\r\n\r\nCh. 1, \u2018The Scholar and his Books\u2019, introduces us to what is known of Simplicius\u2019 life and education (with Ammonius in Alexandria and Damascius in Athens, in the early decades of the sixth century) and addresses the major problem of the location and circumstances in which he composed his vast commentaries\u2014necessarily after the official closing of the Academy in 529, and the return of the philosophers, of whom he was one, from Persia in 531. The Harran hypothesis of Tardieu runs into the great problem of the availability of source materials in such a relatively outlying place, and B. is inclined to reject it. The alternative is a return to Athens, or possibly Alexandria, where at least there were good libraries.\r\n\r\nFor one salient aspect of Simplicius\u2019 work is his extraordinary range of reading, and his willingness to provide us with verbatim quotations from this, extending from Presocratics such as Parmenides, Melissus, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras, through immediate followers of Aristotle, such as Theophrastus and Eudemus, and then the great second-century A.D. Aristotelian commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias, down to his Neoplatonic predecessors Porphyry, Iamblichus, Syrianus, and Proclus, and his own teacher Damascius. B. devotes separate chapters to each of these categories of predecessor.\r\n\r\nCh. 2, \u2018Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy? Origins of Ancient Wisdom\u2019, looks at his use of Parmenides, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras in particular, and makes various suggestions about his overall purposes in this. It is certainly notable that Simplicius favours verbatim quotation even of prose authors\u2014in contrast, for example, to such a figure as Proclus, who prefers to paraphrase prose authors at least\u2014but I think that I would rest content with Simplicius\u2019 own explanation (and apologies for over-quotation!), that he was concerned to preserve as much as he could of sources that were becoming increasingly rare in his day. It does not mean that he is not prepared to distort their meaning in a Neoplatonic direction.\r\n\r\nCh. 3, \u2018Towards a Canon: The Early Peripatetics\u2019, turns to a study of Theophrastus and Eudemus, and in particular their comments on, and adaptations of, Aristotle\u2019s Physics. It is here, I fear, that one begins to realise that this is the sort of book that is best appreciated if one has the original works it is discussing at one\u2019s elbow, as one generally does not\u2014in this case, chiefly Simplicius\u2019 vast Commentary on the Physics. However, B. undoubtedly gives a good account of how Simplicius uses Theophrastus, and particularly Eudemus, whom he actually refers to far more (132 references as against 37!), for the clarification of Aristotle\u2019s doctrine.\r\n\r\nCh. 4, \u2018Ghost in the Machine? The Role of Alexander of Aphrodisias\u2019, deals with Alexander, who is indeed Simplicius\u2019 chief authority\u2014quoted or mentioned in all fully 1200 times, of which around 700 are in the Physics Commentary. Alexander is, for Simplicius, simply \"the commentator,\" and is of basic importance to him. After giving a useful account of Alexander's own exegetical achievements, B. tries to draw up something of a typology of ways in which he is used by Simplicius (4.3): first, he can be used as simply a helpful source for understanding Aristotle; secondly, he can be quoted and criticised, on a matter of interpretation or doctrine; thirdly, he can be quoted in connection with a variant in the manuscript tradition. Of all these, he gives examples, emphasising how central Alexander is to the whole commentary tradition.\r\n\r\nCh. 5, \u2018Platonist Commentators: Sources and Inspiration\u2019, takes us through the later Platonist tradition of commentary, with a glance at the Middle Platonists, but focusing chiefly on Porphyry and Iamblichus, and the establishing of the \"harmonising\" interpretation of Aristotle of which Simplicius is the heir. The use of these Platonist predecessors is particularly notable in the case of the Categories Commentary, but it affects the others as well.\r\n\r\nLastly, in Ch. 6, \u2018Polemic and Exegesis in Simplicius: Defending Pagan Theology\u2019, he deals with Simplicius\u2019 fierce controversy with his Christian contemporary John Philoponus, as well as with his more civil criticisms of Alexander. The bitterness of his assaults on Philoponus does, as B. argues, bring home to us how far Simplicius is a heroic and tragic figure, trying to preserve and synthesise the whole of the Hellenic (I do wish we could give up the term \"pagan\"!) philosophical tradition in face of the ever more insistent Christian challenge, and composing his vast commentaries for a now largely imaginary coterie of students.\r\n\r\nAn Epilogue resumes all these findings, and B. appends some useful appendices, including one listing the probable contents of Simplicius\u2019 library, which certainly brings it home to us that these great works of his could not have been composed while wandering about the Syrian desert on the back of a camel. He really must have been back in Athens, with some access to the library of the Platonic School.\r\n\r\nAt any rate, with this study, B. at last gives Simplicius something of his due as a scholar as well as a commentator. [the entire review p. 158-160]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/p1cPjdejj6J9LSt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":601,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"3","issue":"2","pages":"158 \u2013160"}},"sort":[2009]}
| Title | Iamblichus De anima: Text, Translation, and Commentary |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Publication Place | Leiden |
| Publisher | Brill |
| Series | Philosophia antiqua |
| Volume | 92 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Finamore, John F. , Dillon, John , Iamblichus |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Iamblichus (245-325), successor to Plotinus and Porphyry, brought a new religiosity to Neoplatonism. His theory of the soul is at the heart of his philosophical system. For Iamblichus, the human soul is so far inferior to the divine that its salvation depends not on philosophy alone (as it did for Plotinus) but on the aid of the gods and other divinities. This edition of the fragments of Iamblichus' major work on the soul, De Anima, is accompanied by the first English translation of the work and a commentary which explains the philosophical background and Iamblichus' doctrine of the soul. Included as well are excerpts from the Pseudo-Simplicius and Priscianus (also translated with commentary) that shed further light on Iamblichus' treatise. [authors abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/io7BO9pzLrSoTGE |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"43","_score":null,"_source":{"id":43,"authors_free":[{"id":50,"entry_id":43,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":120,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Finamore, John F.","free_first_name":"John F.","free_last_name":"Finamore","norm_person":{"id":120,"first_name":"John F.","last_name":"Finamore","full_name":"Finamore, John F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055775080","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":51,"entry_id":43,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Dillon","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2518,"entry_id":43,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":528,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Iamblichus","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":528,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"Iamblichus, Chalcidensis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118555154","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Iamblichus De anima: Text, Translation, and Commentary","main_title":{"title":"Iamblichus De anima: Text, Translation, and Commentary"},"abstract":"Iamblichus (245-325), successor to Plotinus and Porphyry, brought a new religiosity to Neoplatonism. His theory of the soul is at the heart of his philosophical system. For Iamblichus, the human soul is so far inferior to the divine that its salvation depends not on philosophy alone (as it did for Plotinus) but on the aid of the gods and other divinities.\r\nThis edition of the fragments of Iamblichus' major work on the soul, De Anima, is accompanied by the first English translation of the work and a commentary which explains the philosophical background and Iamblichus' doctrine of the soul. Included as well are excerpts from the Pseudo-Simplicius and Priscianus (also translated with commentary) that shed further light on Iamblichus' treatise. [authors abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/io7BO9pzLrSoTGE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":120,"full_name":"Finamore, John F.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":528,"full_name":"Iamblichus, Chalcidensis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":43,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua","volume":"92","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2002]}
| Title | Iamblichus De anima: Text, Translation, and Commentary |
| Type | Monograph |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Publication Place | Leiden |
| Publisher | Brill |
| Series | Philosophia antiqua |
| Volume | 92 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Finamore, John F. , Dillon, John , Iamblichus |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Iamblichus (245-325), successor to Plotinus and Porphyry, brought a new religiosity to Neoplatonism. His theory of the soul is at the heart of his philosophical system. For Iamblichus, the human soul is so far inferior to the divine that its salvation depends not on philosophy alone (as it did for Plotinus) but on the aid of the gods and other divinities. This edition of the fragments of Iamblichus' major work on the soul, De Anima, is accompanied by the first English translation of the work and a commentary which explains the philosophical background and Iamblichus' doctrine of the soul. Included as well are excerpts from the Pseudo-Simplicius and Priscianus (also translated with commentary) that shed further light on Iamblichus' treatise. [authors abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/io7BO9pzLrSoTGE |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"43","_score":null,"_source":{"id":43,"authors_free":[{"id":50,"entry_id":43,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":120,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Finamore, John F.","free_first_name":"John F.","free_last_name":"Finamore","norm_person":{"id":120,"first_name":"John F.","last_name":"Finamore","full_name":"Finamore, John F.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1055775080","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":51,"entry_id":43,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Dillon","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2518,"entry_id":43,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":528,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Iamblichus","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":528,"first_name":"","last_name":"","full_name":"Iamblichus, Chalcidensis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118555154","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Iamblichus De anima: Text, Translation, and Commentary","main_title":{"title":"Iamblichus De anima: Text, Translation, and Commentary"},"abstract":"Iamblichus (245-325), successor to Plotinus and Porphyry, brought a new religiosity to Neoplatonism. His theory of the soul is at the heart of his philosophical system. For Iamblichus, the human soul is so far inferior to the divine that its salvation depends not on philosophy alone (as it did for Plotinus) but on the aid of the gods and other divinities.\r\nThis edition of the fragments of Iamblichus' major work on the soul, De Anima, is accompanied by the first English translation of the work and a commentary which explains the philosophical background and Iamblichus' doctrine of the soul. Included as well are excerpts from the Pseudo-Simplicius and Priscianus (also translated with commentary) that shed further light on Iamblichus' treatise. [authors abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/io7BO9pzLrSoTGE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":120,"full_name":"Finamore, John F.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":528,"full_name":"Iamblichus, Chalcidensis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":43,"pubplace":"Leiden","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia antiqua","volume":"92","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Iamblichus De anima: Text, Translation, and Commentary"]}
| Title | Iamblichus’ Noera Theôria of Aristotle’s Categories |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2016 |
| Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
| Pages | 313-326 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Dillon, John |
| Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
| Translator(s) |
It will be seen that it is Iamblichus’ purpose to salvage Aristotle, reconciling him both with his perceived doctrine elsewhere (as, for example, in the Metaphysics and the Physics), and with that of Plato and the Pythagoreans. The aim is to establish a metaphysical framework for the interpretation of the Categories, revealing the hidden levels of truth inherent in it. This is achieved, of course, at the cost of ignoring what seems to us the essentially anti-metaphysical, as well as tentative and exploratory, nature of the Categories, but it would be somewhat anachronistic to condemn Iamblichus too severely for that. The text of the Categories had been a battleground for at least three hundred years before his time, from the period of Andronicus, Ariston, and Eudorus of Alexandria, and the Stoic Apollodorus of Tarsus in the first century BCE, through that of the Platonists Lucius and Nicostratus, and then Atticus, and the Stoic Cornutus, and lastly Alexander of Aphrodisias in the first and second centuries CE, down to Plotinus and Porphyry in his own day, with every phrase and word of the text liable to challenge and requiring defense. Iamblichus’ distinctive contribution is to take the Categories as a coherent description of reality in the Neoplatonic sense, and that, bizarre as it may seem to us, is not really all that more perverse than many of the various ways in which the work had been treated in the centuries before him. [conclusion p. 324-325] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/d9iiR3Sr5aRY9S7 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1533","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1533,"authors_free":[{"id":2671,"entry_id":1533,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"","free_last_name":"","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2672,"entry_id":1533,"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":"Iamblichus\u2019 Noera The\u00f4ria of Aristotle\u2019s Categories","main_title":{"title":"Iamblichus\u2019 Noera The\u00f4ria of Aristotle\u2019s Categories"},"abstract":"It will be seen that it is Iamblichus\u2019 purpose to salvage Aristotle, reconciling him both with his perceived doctrine elsewhere (as, for example, in the Metaphysics and the Physics), and with that of Plato and the Pythagoreans. The aim is to establish a metaphysical framework for the interpretation of the Categories, revealing the hidden levels of truth inherent in it. This is achieved, of course, at the cost of ignoring what seems to us the essentially anti-metaphysical, as well as tentative and exploratory, nature of the Categories, but it would be somewhat anachronistic to condemn Iamblichus too severely for that. The text of the Categories had been a battleground for at least three hundred years before his time, from the period of Andronicus, Ariston, and Eudorus of Alexandria, and the Stoic Apollodorus of Tarsus in the first century BCE, through that of the Platonists Lucius and Nicostratus, and then Atticus, and the Stoic Cornutus, and lastly Alexander of Aphrodisias in the first and second centuries CE, down to Plotinus and Porphyry in his own day, with every phrase and word of the text liable to challenge and requiring defense. Iamblichus\u2019 distinctive contribution is to take the Categories as a coherent description of reality in the Neoplatonic sense, and that, bizarre as it may seem to us, is not really all that more perverse than many of the various ways in which the work had been treated in the centuries before him. [conclusion p. 324-325]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/d9iiR3Sr5aRY9S7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1533,"section_of":1419,"pages":"313-326","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":["Iamblichus\u2019 Noera The\u00f4ria of Aristotle\u2019s Categories"]}
| Title | Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2009 |
| Journal | The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition |
| Volume | 3 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 158 –160 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Dillon, John |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
This is a most welcome book, by a scholar who has had much to do with Simplicius over the last decade or so, as part of the great Ancient Commentators on Aristotle project, initiated by Richard Sorabji (indeed it is to Sorabji that the book is dedicated). The fruits of this experience are evidenced on more or less every page. As B. remarks, it has not been customary hitherto to focus on the personality or methods of Simplicius himself, as opposed to his value as a source for previous figures, both commentators and original authors, such as the Presocratics—such would have been the attitude of the great Hermann Diels, for example, who edited the Physics Commentary, as well as making so much use of him for his Fragmente der Vorsokratiker and Doxographi Graeci. But undoubtedly, Simplicius merits some attention for himself. The book consists of six chapters, with an introduction and an epilogue. The introduction sets out the parameters of the problem: what should one expect in the way of philosophical attitudes from a late antique Platonist such as Simplicius, and how B. himself proposes to proceed in evaluating him. He emphasises that there are many ways in which this is something of a "work in progress," but he certainly provides enough material to give us a good idea of what Simplicius is up to. Above all, learned though he is, and copiously though he quotes his predecessors, we should not expect Simplicius to be in any anachronistic way an "objective" scholar. He is a Platonist, and his purpose is to assimilate Aristotle (and indeed the Presocratic philosophers) into the Platonist system. Ch. 1, ‘The Scholar and his Books’, introduces us to what is known of Simplicius’ life and education (with Ammonius in Alexandria and Damascius in Athens, in the early decades of the sixth century) and addresses the major problem of the location and circumstances in which he composed his vast commentaries—necessarily after the official closing of the Academy in 529, and the return of the philosophers, of whom he was one, from Persia in 531. The Harran hypothesis of Tardieu runs into the great problem of the availability of source materials in such a relatively outlying place, and B. is inclined to reject it. The alternative is a return to Athens, or possibly Alexandria, where at least there were good libraries. For one salient aspect of Simplicius’ work is his extraordinary range of reading, and his willingness to provide us with verbatim quotations from this, extending from Presocratics such as Parmenides, Melissus, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras, through immediate followers of Aristotle, such as Theophrastus and Eudemus, and then the great second-century A.D. Aristotelian commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias, down to his Neoplatonic predecessors Porphyry, Iamblichus, Syrianus, and Proclus, and his own teacher Damascius. B. devotes separate chapters to each of these categories of predecessor. Ch. 2, ‘Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy? Origins of Ancient Wisdom’, looks at his use of Parmenides, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras in particular, and makes various suggestions about his overall purposes in this. It is certainly notable that Simplicius favours verbatim quotation even of prose authors—in contrast, for example, to such a figure as Proclus, who prefers to paraphrase prose authors at least—but I think that I would rest content with Simplicius’ own explanation (and apologies for over-quotation!), that he was concerned to preserve as much as he could of sources that were becoming increasingly rare in his day. It does not mean that he is not prepared to distort their meaning in a Neoplatonic direction. Ch. 3, ‘Towards a Canon: The Early Peripatetics’, turns to a study of Theophrastus and Eudemus, and in particular their comments on, and adaptations of, Aristotle’s Physics. It is here, I fear, that one begins to realise that this is the sort of book that is best appreciated if one has the original works it is discussing at one’s elbow, as one generally does not—in this case, chiefly Simplicius’ vast Commentary on the Physics. However, B. undoubtedly gives a good account of how Simplicius uses Theophrastus, and particularly Eudemus, whom he actually refers to far more (132 references as against 37!), for the clarification of Aristotle’s doctrine. Ch. 4, ‘Ghost in the Machine? The Role of Alexander of Aphrodisias’, deals with Alexander, who is indeed Simplicius’ chief authority—quoted or mentioned in all fully 1200 times, of which around 700 are in the Physics Commentary. Alexander is, for Simplicius, simply "the commentator," and is of basic importance to him. After giving a useful account of Alexander's own exegetical achievements, B. tries to draw up something of a typology of ways in which he is used by Simplicius (4.3): first, he can be used as simply a helpful source for understanding Aristotle; secondly, he can be quoted and criticised, on a matter of interpretation or doctrine; thirdly, he can be quoted in connection with a variant in the manuscript tradition. Of all these, he gives examples, emphasising how central Alexander is to the whole commentary tradition. Ch. 5, ‘Platonist Commentators: Sources and Inspiration’, takes us through the later Platonist tradition of commentary, with a glance at the Middle Platonists, but focusing chiefly on Porphyry and Iamblichus, and the establishing of the "harmonising" interpretation of Aristotle of which Simplicius is the heir. The use of these Platonist predecessors is particularly notable in the case of the Categories Commentary, but it affects the others as well. Lastly, in Ch. 6, ‘Polemic and Exegesis in Simplicius: Defending Pagan Theology’, he deals with Simplicius’ fierce controversy with his Christian contemporary John Philoponus, as well as with his more civil criticisms of Alexander. The bitterness of his assaults on Philoponus does, as B. argues, bring home to us how far Simplicius is a heroic and tragic figure, trying to preserve and synthesise the whole of the Hellenic (I do wish we could give up the term "pagan"!) philosophical tradition in face of the ever more insistent Christian challenge, and composing his vast commentaries for a now largely imaginary coterie of students. An Epilogue resumes all these findings, and B. appends some useful appendices, including one listing the probable contents of Simplicius’ library, which certainly brings it home to us that these great works of his could not have been composed while wandering about the Syrian desert on the back of a camel. He really must have been back in Athens, with some access to the library of the Platonic School. At any rate, with this study, B. at last gives Simplicius something of his due as a scholar as well as a commentator. [the entire review p. 158-160] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/p1cPjdejj6J9LSt |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"601","_score":null,"_source":{"id":601,"authors_free":[{"id":852,"entry_id":601,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":97,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Dillon, John","free_first_name":"John","free_last_name":"Dillon","norm_person":{"id":97,"first_name":"John","last_name":"Dillon","full_name":"Dillon, John","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123498058","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator","main_title":{"title":"Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator"},"abstract":"This is a most welcome book, by a scholar who has had much to do with Simplicius over the last decade or so, as part of the great Ancient Commentators on Aristotle project, initiated by Richard Sorabji (indeed it is to Sorabji that the book is dedicated). The fruits of this experience are evidenced on more or less every page. As B. remarks, it has not been customary hitherto to focus on the personality or methods of Simplicius himself, as opposed to his value as a source for previous figures, both commentators and original authors, such as the Presocratics\u2014such would have been the attitude of the great Hermann Diels, for example, who edited the Physics Commentary, as well as making so much use of him for his Fragmente der Vorsokratiker and Doxographi Graeci. But undoubtedly, Simplicius merits some attention for himself.\r\n\r\nThe book consists of six chapters, with an introduction and an epilogue. The introduction sets out the parameters of the problem: what should one expect in the way of philosophical attitudes from a late antique Platonist such as Simplicius, and how B. himself proposes to proceed in evaluating him. He emphasises that there are many ways in which this is something of a \"work in progress,\" but he certainly provides enough material to give us a good idea of what Simplicius is up to. Above all, learned though he is, and copiously though he quotes his predecessors, we should not expect Simplicius to be in any anachronistic way an \"objective\" scholar. He is a Platonist, and his purpose is to assimilate Aristotle (and indeed the Presocratic philosophers) into the Platonist system.\r\n\r\nCh. 1, \u2018The Scholar and his Books\u2019, introduces us to what is known of Simplicius\u2019 life and education (with Ammonius in Alexandria and Damascius in Athens, in the early decades of the sixth century) and addresses the major problem of the location and circumstances in which he composed his vast commentaries\u2014necessarily after the official closing of the Academy in 529, and the return of the philosophers, of whom he was one, from Persia in 531. The Harran hypothesis of Tardieu runs into the great problem of the availability of source materials in such a relatively outlying place, and B. is inclined to reject it. The alternative is a return to Athens, or possibly Alexandria, where at least there were good libraries.\r\n\r\nFor one salient aspect of Simplicius\u2019 work is his extraordinary range of reading, and his willingness to provide us with verbatim quotations from this, extending from Presocratics such as Parmenides, Melissus, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras, through immediate followers of Aristotle, such as Theophrastus and Eudemus, and then the great second-century A.D. Aristotelian commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias, down to his Neoplatonic predecessors Porphyry, Iamblichus, Syrianus, and Proclus, and his own teacher Damascius. B. devotes separate chapters to each of these categories of predecessor.\r\n\r\nCh. 2, \u2018Rethinking Early Greek Philosophy? Origins of Ancient Wisdom\u2019, looks at his use of Parmenides, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras in particular, and makes various suggestions about his overall purposes in this. It is certainly notable that Simplicius favours verbatim quotation even of prose authors\u2014in contrast, for example, to such a figure as Proclus, who prefers to paraphrase prose authors at least\u2014but I think that I would rest content with Simplicius\u2019 own explanation (and apologies for over-quotation!), that he was concerned to preserve as much as he could of sources that were becoming increasingly rare in his day. It does not mean that he is not prepared to distort their meaning in a Neoplatonic direction.\r\n\r\nCh. 3, \u2018Towards a Canon: The Early Peripatetics\u2019, turns to a study of Theophrastus and Eudemus, and in particular their comments on, and adaptations of, Aristotle\u2019s Physics. It is here, I fear, that one begins to realise that this is the sort of book that is best appreciated if one has the original works it is discussing at one\u2019s elbow, as one generally does not\u2014in this case, chiefly Simplicius\u2019 vast Commentary on the Physics. However, B. undoubtedly gives a good account of how Simplicius uses Theophrastus, and particularly Eudemus, whom he actually refers to far more (132 references as against 37!), for the clarification of Aristotle\u2019s doctrine.\r\n\r\nCh. 4, \u2018Ghost in the Machine? The Role of Alexander of Aphrodisias\u2019, deals with Alexander, who is indeed Simplicius\u2019 chief authority\u2014quoted or mentioned in all fully 1200 times, of which around 700 are in the Physics Commentary. Alexander is, for Simplicius, simply \"the commentator,\" and is of basic importance to him. After giving a useful account of Alexander's own exegetical achievements, B. tries to draw up something of a typology of ways in which he is used by Simplicius (4.3): first, he can be used as simply a helpful source for understanding Aristotle; secondly, he can be quoted and criticised, on a matter of interpretation or doctrine; thirdly, he can be quoted in connection with a variant in the manuscript tradition. Of all these, he gives examples, emphasising how central Alexander is to the whole commentary tradition.\r\n\r\nCh. 5, \u2018Platonist Commentators: Sources and Inspiration\u2019, takes us through the later Platonist tradition of commentary, with a glance at the Middle Platonists, but focusing chiefly on Porphyry and Iamblichus, and the establishing of the \"harmonising\" interpretation of Aristotle of which Simplicius is the heir. The use of these Platonist predecessors is particularly notable in the case of the Categories Commentary, but it affects the others as well.\r\n\r\nLastly, in Ch. 6, \u2018Polemic and Exegesis in Simplicius: Defending Pagan Theology\u2019, he deals with Simplicius\u2019 fierce controversy with his Christian contemporary John Philoponus, as well as with his more civil criticisms of Alexander. The bitterness of his assaults on Philoponus does, as B. argues, bring home to us how far Simplicius is a heroic and tragic figure, trying to preserve and synthesise the whole of the Hellenic (I do wish we could give up the term \"pagan\"!) philosophical tradition in face of the ever more insistent Christian challenge, and composing his vast commentaries for a now largely imaginary coterie of students.\r\n\r\nAn Epilogue resumes all these findings, and B. appends some useful appendices, including one listing the probable contents of Simplicius\u2019 library, which certainly brings it home to us that these great works of his could not have been composed while wandering about the Syrian desert on the back of a camel. He really must have been back in Athens, with some access to the library of the Platonic School.\r\n\r\nAt any rate, with this study, B. at last gives Simplicius something of his due as a scholar as well as a commentator. [the entire review p. 158-160]","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/p1cPjdejj6J9LSt","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":97,"full_name":"Dillon, John","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":601,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"3","issue":"2","pages":"158 \u2013160"}},"sort":["Review of Baltussen 2008: Philosophy and Exegesis in Simplicius: The Methodology of a Commentator"]}