| Title | The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2020 |
| Journal | Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy |
| Volume | 35 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1-22 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gabor, Gary |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The traditional ascription of the Neoplatonic commentary on the De Anima to Simplicius has prominently been disputed by Carlos Steel and Fernand Bossier, along with J.O. Urmson and Francesco Piccolomini, among others. Citing problems with terminology, diction, cross-references, doctrine, and other features, these authors have argued that the commentary cannot have been composed by Simplicius and that Priscian of Lydia is a favored alternative. In this paper, I present some new arguments for why the traditional attribution to Simplicius is, in fact, the correct one. In particular, while addressing some of the terminological facts that have also been discussed by Christina Luna, Peter Lautner, Patricia Huby, and Philippe Vallat, among others, I offer a more secure basis for identifying the author of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius than has so far been proposed. In place of the disputes regarding terminology, which the debate has largely centered upon, I argue that certain unique and characteristic interpretive procedures, which one only finds in the undisputed Simplician works, allow us to identify the authorship of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius securely. Further, comparison of these methodological features with the extant works of Priscian rules out the possibility of his authorship of the commentary. I also provide some suggestions for resolving a few remaining issues of cross-reference between the De Anima commentary and the rest of Simplicius’s work. Finally, I conclude with some words on how that particular form of harmonization pursued by Simplicius’s contemporaries differs from both that of the De Anima commentary as well as his other works. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pVUbfH8m3jQVsKw |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1466","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1466,"authors_free":[{"id":2539,"entry_id":1466,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima","main_title":{"title":"The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima"},"abstract":"The traditional ascription of the Neoplatonic commentary on the De Anima to Sim\u00adplicius has prominently been disputed by Carlos Steel and Fernand Bossier, along with J.O. Urmson and Francesco Piccolomini, among others. Citing problems with terminology, diction, cross-references, doctrine, and other features, these authors have argued that the commentary cannot have been composed by Simplicius and that Priscian of Lydia is a favored alternative. In this paper, I present some new arguments for why the traditional attribution to Simplicius is, in fact, the correct one. In particular, while addressing some of the terminological facts that have also been discussed by Christina Luna, Peter Lautner, Patricia Huby, and Philippe Vallat, among others, I offer a more secure basis for identifying the author of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius than has so far been proposed. In place of the disputes regarding terminology, which the debate has largely centered upon, I argue that certain unique and characteristic interpretive procedures, which one only finds in the undisputed Simplician works, allow us to identify the authorship of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius securely. Further, comparison of these methodological features with the extant works of Priscian rules out the possibility of his authorship of the commentary. I also provide some suggestions for resolving a few remaining issues of cross-reference between the De Anima commentary and the rest of Simplicius\u2019s work. Finally, I conclude with some words on how that particular form of harmonization pursued by Simplicius\u2019s contemporaries differs from both that of the De Anima commentary as well as his other works. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pVUbfH8m3jQVsKw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1466,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy ","volume":"35","issue":"1","pages":"1-22"}},"sort":[2020]}
| Title | The Justification and Derivation of Aristotle’s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2014 |
| Journal | Quaestiones Disputatae |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 99-112 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gabor, Gary |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Susanne Bobzien recently described “the volumes of the Greek commentators on Aristotle’s logical works” as “monumental” but “rarely creative.” While to a certain degree accurate, Bobzien’s assessment obscures the occasional flashes of innovation in these works. I intend to explore one such example here—the question of what justification, if any, late ancient philosophers gave for Aristotle’s ten categories. This topic would also animate later interpreters of Aristotle, sometimes with positive and sometimes more critical results. Kant, for instance, rejected Aristotle’s list for what he perceived as its capricious and arbitrary nature, arguing that Aristotle “had no principle” and merely “rounded them up as he stumbled upon them.” In fact, Kant was neither the first nor the last to perceive that Aristotle’s account of the categories needed some sort of justification. The existence of rival categorial schemes, in particular, demands it. In the ancient world, the Stoics provided a fourfold series of categories, and Plato provided a fivefold set of greatest kinds in the Sophist. More recently, E. J. Lowe has defended another fourfold Aristotelian-inspired ontology as fundamental. For Platonists of late antiquity, the question of justification for Aristotle’s categories had special force following Plotinus’s analysis and critique of them, along with the Stoic, Platonic, and other accounts in Enneads 6.1–2. Plotinus’s student Porphyry later defended and commented on Aristotle’s Categories, and Iamblichus reinterpreted and included the Categories in the philosophical curriculum that was to remain standard in the Neoplatonic schools for several centuries. For the Neoplatonic commentators working in these schools, one of the first questions raised in their commentaries was the justification that could be given to Aristotle’s tenfold scheme. I shall examine two such justifications: those given by Ammonius Hermiae, scholarch of the Platonist school in Alexandria, Egypt, during the second half of the fifth century AD, and his student Simplicius, the last great commentator in the Athenian Academy before its closure by Emperor Justinian in AD 529. Ammonius’s account of the categories is relatively simple, while Simplicius’s is more complex. Both, however, argue for a justification of the ten categories presented by Aristotle as in some sense a correct list. By comparing the two accounts, one can discern a distinct development in Neoplatonic justifications of Aristotle’s categories. [introduction p. 99-101] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mg1q6H4L6heepIU |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"918","_score":null,"_source":{"id":918,"authors_free":[{"id":1357,"entry_id":918,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Justification and Derivation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The Justification and Derivation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius"},"abstract":"Susanne Bobzien recently described \u201cthe volumes of the Greek commentators on Aristotle\u2019s logical works\u201d as \u201cmonumental\u201d but \u201crarely creative.\u201d While to a certain degree accurate, Bobzien\u2019s assessment obscures the occasional flashes of innovation in these works. I intend to explore one such example here\u2014the question of what justification, if any, late ancient philosophers gave for Aristotle\u2019s ten categories.\r\n\r\nThis topic would also animate later interpreters of Aristotle, sometimes with positive and sometimes more critical results. Kant, for instance, rejected Aristotle\u2019s list for what he perceived as its capricious and arbitrary nature, arguing that Aristotle \u201chad no principle\u201d and merely \u201crounded them up as he stumbled upon them.\u201d In fact, Kant was neither the first nor the last to perceive that Aristotle\u2019s account of the categories needed some sort of justification. The existence of rival categorial schemes, in particular, demands it. In the ancient world, the Stoics provided a fourfold series of categories, and Plato provided a fivefold set of greatest kinds in the Sophist. More recently, E. J. Lowe has defended another fourfold Aristotelian-inspired ontology as fundamental.\r\n\r\nFor Platonists of late antiquity, the question of justification for Aristotle\u2019s categories had special force following Plotinus\u2019s analysis and critique of them, along with the Stoic, Platonic, and other accounts in Enneads 6.1\u20132. Plotinus\u2019s student Porphyry later defended and commented on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, and Iamblichus reinterpreted and included the Categories in the philosophical curriculum that was to remain standard in the Neoplatonic schools for several centuries.\r\n\r\nFor the Neoplatonic commentators working in these schools, one of the first questions raised in their commentaries was the justification that could be given to Aristotle\u2019s tenfold scheme. I shall examine two such justifications: those given by Ammonius Hermiae, scholarch of the Platonist school in Alexandria, Egypt, during the second half of the fifth century AD, and his student Simplicius, the last great commentator in the Athenian Academy before its closure by Emperor Justinian in AD 529.\r\n\r\nAmmonius\u2019s account of the categories is relatively simple, while Simplicius\u2019s is more complex. Both, however, argue for a justification of the ten categories presented by Aristotle as in some sense a correct list. By comparing the two accounts, one can discern a distinct development in Neoplatonic justifications of Aristotle\u2019s categories. [introduction p. 99-101]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mg1q6H4L6heepIU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":918,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":"4","issue":"2","pages":"99-112"}},"sort":[2014]}
| Title | The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2020 |
| Journal | Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy |
| Volume | 35 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1-22 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gabor, Gary |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
The traditional ascription of the Neoplatonic commentary on the De Anima to Simplicius has prominently been disputed by Carlos Steel and Fernand Bossier, along with J.O. Urmson and Francesco Piccolomini, among others. Citing problems with terminology, diction, cross-references, doctrine, and other features, these authors have argued that the commentary cannot have been composed by Simplicius and that Priscian of Lydia is a favored alternative. In this paper, I present some new arguments for why the traditional attribution to Simplicius is, in fact, the correct one. In particular, while addressing some of the terminological facts that have also been discussed by Christina Luna, Peter Lautner, Patricia Huby, and Philippe Vallat, among others, I offer a more secure basis for identifying the author of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius than has so far been proposed. In place of the disputes regarding terminology, which the debate has largely centered upon, I argue that certain unique and characteristic interpretive procedures, which one only finds in the undisputed Simplician works, allow us to identify the authorship of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius securely. Further, comparison of these methodological features with the extant works of Priscian rules out the possibility of his authorship of the commentary. I also provide some suggestions for resolving a few remaining issues of cross-reference between the De Anima commentary and the rest of Simplicius’s work. Finally, I conclude with some words on how that particular form of harmonization pursued by Simplicius’s contemporaries differs from both that of the De Anima commentary as well as his other works. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/pVUbfH8m3jQVsKw |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1466","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1466,"authors_free":[{"id":2539,"entry_id":1466,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima","main_title":{"title":"The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima"},"abstract":"The traditional ascription of the Neoplatonic commentary on the De Anima to Sim\u00adplicius has prominently been disputed by Carlos Steel and Fernand Bossier, along with J.O. Urmson and Francesco Piccolomini, among others. Citing problems with terminology, diction, cross-references, doctrine, and other features, these authors have argued that the commentary cannot have been composed by Simplicius and that Priscian of Lydia is a favored alternative. In this paper, I present some new arguments for why the traditional attribution to Simplicius is, in fact, the correct one. In particular, while addressing some of the terminological facts that have also been discussed by Christina Luna, Peter Lautner, Patricia Huby, and Philippe Vallat, among others, I offer a more secure basis for identifying the author of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius than has so far been proposed. In place of the disputes regarding terminology, which the debate has largely centered upon, I argue that certain unique and characteristic interpretive procedures, which one only finds in the undisputed Simplician works, allow us to identify the authorship of the De Anima commentary with Simplicius securely. Further, comparison of these methodological features with the extant works of Priscian rules out the possibility of his authorship of the commentary. I also provide some suggestions for resolving a few remaining issues of cross-reference between the De Anima commentary and the rest of Simplicius\u2019s work. Finally, I conclude with some words on how that particular form of harmonization pursued by Simplicius\u2019s contemporaries differs from both that of the De Anima commentary as well as his other works. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2020","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/pVUbfH8m3jQVsKw","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1466,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy ","volume":"35","issue":"1","pages":"1-22"}},"sort":["The Authorship of the Pseudo-Simplician Neoplatonic Commentary on the De Anima"]}
| Title | The Justification and Derivation of Aristotle’s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2014 |
| Journal | Quaestiones Disputatae |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 99-112 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Gabor, Gary |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Susanne Bobzien recently described “the volumes of the Greek commentators on Aristotle’s logical works” as “monumental” but “rarely creative.” While to a certain degree accurate, Bobzien’s assessment obscures the occasional flashes of innovation in these works. I intend to explore one such example here—the question of what justification, if any, late ancient philosophers gave for Aristotle’s ten categories. This topic would also animate later interpreters of Aristotle, sometimes with positive and sometimes more critical results. Kant, for instance, rejected Aristotle’s list for what he perceived as its capricious and arbitrary nature, arguing that Aristotle “had no principle” and merely “rounded them up as he stumbled upon them.” In fact, Kant was neither the first nor the last to perceive that Aristotle’s account of the categories needed some sort of justification. The existence of rival categorial schemes, in particular, demands it. In the ancient world, the Stoics provided a fourfold series of categories, and Plato provided a fivefold set of greatest kinds in the Sophist. More recently, E. J. Lowe has defended another fourfold Aristotelian-inspired ontology as fundamental. For Platonists of late antiquity, the question of justification for Aristotle’s categories had special force following Plotinus’s analysis and critique of them, along with the Stoic, Platonic, and other accounts in Enneads 6.1–2. Plotinus’s student Porphyry later defended and commented on Aristotle’s Categories, and Iamblichus reinterpreted and included the Categories in the philosophical curriculum that was to remain standard in the Neoplatonic schools for several centuries. For the Neoplatonic commentators working in these schools, one of the first questions raised in their commentaries was the justification that could be given to Aristotle’s tenfold scheme. I shall examine two such justifications: those given by Ammonius Hermiae, scholarch of the Platonist school in Alexandria, Egypt, during the second half of the fifth century AD, and his student Simplicius, the last great commentator in the Athenian Academy before its closure by Emperor Justinian in AD 529. Ammonius’s account of the categories is relatively simple, while Simplicius’s is more complex. Both, however, argue for a justification of the ten categories presented by Aristotle as in some sense a correct list. By comparing the two accounts, one can discern a distinct development in Neoplatonic justifications of Aristotle’s categories. [introduction p. 99-101] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/mg1q6H4L6heepIU |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"918","_score":null,"_source":{"id":918,"authors_free":[{"id":1357,"entry_id":918,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":106,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Gabor, Gary","free_first_name":"Gary","free_last_name":"Gabor","norm_person":{"id":106,"first_name":"Gary","last_name":"Gabor ","full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Justification and Derivation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"The Justification and Derivation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius"},"abstract":"Susanne Bobzien recently described \u201cthe volumes of the Greek commentators on Aristotle\u2019s logical works\u201d as \u201cmonumental\u201d but \u201crarely creative.\u201d While to a certain degree accurate, Bobzien\u2019s assessment obscures the occasional flashes of innovation in these works. I intend to explore one such example here\u2014the question of what justification, if any, late ancient philosophers gave for Aristotle\u2019s ten categories.\r\n\r\nThis topic would also animate later interpreters of Aristotle, sometimes with positive and sometimes more critical results. Kant, for instance, rejected Aristotle\u2019s list for what he perceived as its capricious and arbitrary nature, arguing that Aristotle \u201chad no principle\u201d and merely \u201crounded them up as he stumbled upon them.\u201d In fact, Kant was neither the first nor the last to perceive that Aristotle\u2019s account of the categories needed some sort of justification. The existence of rival categorial schemes, in particular, demands it. In the ancient world, the Stoics provided a fourfold series of categories, and Plato provided a fivefold set of greatest kinds in the Sophist. More recently, E. J. Lowe has defended another fourfold Aristotelian-inspired ontology as fundamental.\r\n\r\nFor Platonists of late antiquity, the question of justification for Aristotle\u2019s categories had special force following Plotinus\u2019s analysis and critique of them, along with the Stoic, Platonic, and other accounts in Enneads 6.1\u20132. Plotinus\u2019s student Porphyry later defended and commented on Aristotle\u2019s Categories, and Iamblichus reinterpreted and included the Categories in the philosophical curriculum that was to remain standard in the Neoplatonic schools for several centuries.\r\n\r\nFor the Neoplatonic commentators working in these schools, one of the first questions raised in their commentaries was the justification that could be given to Aristotle\u2019s tenfold scheme. I shall examine two such justifications: those given by Ammonius Hermiae, scholarch of the Platonist school in Alexandria, Egypt, during the second half of the fifth century AD, and his student Simplicius, the last great commentator in the Athenian Academy before its closure by Emperor Justinian in AD 529.\r\n\r\nAmmonius\u2019s account of the categories is relatively simple, while Simplicius\u2019s is more complex. Both, however, argue for a justification of the ten categories presented by Aristotle as in some sense a correct list. By comparing the two accounts, one can discern a distinct development in Neoplatonic justifications of Aristotle\u2019s categories. [introduction p. 99-101]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/mg1q6H4L6heepIU","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":106,"full_name":"Gabor, Gary ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":918,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Quaestiones Disputatae","volume":"4","issue":"2","pages":"99-112"}},"sort":["The Justification and Derivation of Aristotle\u2019s Categories in Ammonius and Simplicius"]}