Title | Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2019 |
Published in | Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier |
Pages | 69-99 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Strobel, Benedikt |
Translator(s) |
This study explores the idea of harmonizing philosophical discourse, which aims to reconcile philosophical texts that contain seemingly incompatible ideas. Contrary to the assumption in scholarly literature, this discourse was not widely accepted in the philosophical Schools of Late Antiquity. The author examines the reactions of Syrianus, the Head of the Platonic School at Athens, to Aristotle's criticisms of Plato's philosophy, and how Syrianus accepted parts of Aristotle's philosophy but rejected others. The article also discusses the absence of a philosophical curriculum at the time of Simplicius' Aristotelian Commentaries, which led to his concern about the innate unity of ancient Greek philosophy being broken apart. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QL5VZHREOe1cXap |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1320","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1320,"authors_free":[{"id":1954,"entry_id":1320,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2376,"entry_id":1320,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":326,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":{"id":326,"first_name":" Benedikt","last_name":"Strobel,","full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173882056","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers"},"abstract":"This study explores the idea of harmonizing philosophical discourse, which aims to reconcile philosophical texts that contain seemingly incompatible ideas. Contrary to the assumption in scholarly literature, this discourse was not widely accepted in the philosophical Schools of Late Antiquity. The author examines the reactions of Syrianus, the Head of the Platonic School at Athens, to Aristotle's criticisms of Plato's philosophy, and how Syrianus accepted parts of Aristotle's philosophy but rejected others. The article also discusses the absence of a philosophical curriculum at the time of Simplicius' Aristotelian Commentaries, which led to his concern about the innate unity of ancient Greek philosophy being broken apart. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QL5VZHREOe1cXap","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":326,"full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1320,"section_of":289,"pages":"69-99","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2019]}
Title | Der Begriff der Physis im späten Neuplatonismus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2019 |
Published in | Platon und die Physis |
Pages | 241-253 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Koch, Dietmar , Männlein-Robert, Irmgard , Weidtmann |
Translator(s) |
In dem Text wird die Bedeutung des Konzepts der Physis in der neuplatonischen Philosophie untersucht. Die neuplatonische Theorie der drei Hypostasen - das Eine oder Gute, der Nous oder die Vernunft und die Seele - wird erklärt, von denen alle anderen Realitäten abgeleitet werden. Die Natur wird als eine Art von Seele identifiziert, aber im Gegensatz zur vegetativen Seele ist sie eine lebensähnliche Kraft, die für die Schöpfung der Form und nicht des Lebens verantwortlich ist. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2ke8ehUye0u5kBm |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1329","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1329,"authors_free":[{"id":1962,"entry_id":1329,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2381,"entry_id":1329,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":131,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Koch, Dietmar","free_first_name":"Dietmar","free_last_name":"Koch","norm_person":{"id":131,"first_name":"Dietmar","last_name":"Koch","full_name":"Koch, Dietmar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/102787925X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2385,"entry_id":1329,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":454,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert, Irmgard","free_first_name":"Irmgard","free_last_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert","norm_person":{"id":454,"first_name":"Irmgard","last_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert","full_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert, Irmgard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122904796","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2386,"entry_id":1329,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":455,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Weidtmann","free_first_name":"Niels","free_last_name":"Weidtmann ","norm_person":{"id":455,"first_name":"Niels","last_name":"Weidtmann","full_name":"Weidtmann, Niels","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121934438","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Der Begriff der Physis im sp\u00e4ten Neuplatonismus","main_title":{"title":"Der Begriff der Physis im sp\u00e4ten Neuplatonismus"},"abstract":"In dem Text wird die Bedeutung des Konzepts der Physis in der neuplatonischen Philosophie untersucht. Die neuplatonische Theorie der drei Hypostasen - das Eine oder Gute, der Nous oder die Vernunft und die Seele - wird erkl\u00e4rt, von denen alle anderen Realit\u00e4ten abgeleitet werden. Die Natur wird als eine Art von Seele identifiziert, aber im Gegensatz zur vegetativen Seele ist sie eine lebens\u00e4hnliche Kraft, die f\u00fcr die Sch\u00f6pfung der Form und nicht des Lebens verantwortlich ist. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2ke8ehUye0u5kBm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":131,"full_name":"Koch, Dietmar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":454,"full_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert, Irmgard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":455,"full_name":"Weidtmann, Niels","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1329,"section_of":1330,"pages":"241-253","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1330,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"de","title":"Platon und die Physis","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Koch2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2019","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Der vorliegende Band umfasst Beitr\u00e4ge zu einem zentralen Thema bei Platon: 'Physis' kann bei Platon im naturwissenschaftlichen Sinne als physische, biologische, materielle Natur oder im \u00fcbertragenen Sinne als eigenes Wesen, etwa hinsichtlich Seele, Kosmos oder G\u00f6ttlichem, verstanden werden. So werden in diesem Band medizinische, biologische und kosmologische Ans\u00e4tze ebenso wie ontologische, epistemologische und p\u00e4dagogische Themen zu Platons 'Physis'-Konzept in den Blick genommen. Die zeitgen\u00f6ssische Nomos-Physis-Diskussion Platons mit den Sophisten sowie seine sprach- und kulturphilosophischen \u00dcberlegungen spielen hier eine wichtige Rolle. Die anspruchsvolle literarische Gestaltung der Platonischen Dialoge ist f\u00fcr die genannten Fragestellungen h\u00f6chst relevant, ebenso die Auseinandersetzung sp\u00e4terer platonischer Philosophen mit Platons 'Physis'-Konzept. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AMVDL9mBzjUlvIg","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1330,"pubplace":"T\u00fcbingen","publisher":"Mohr Siebeck","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2019]}
Title | The Neoplatonic Commentators of Aristotle on the Origins of Language: A New “Tower of Babel”? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2019 |
Published in | Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia |
Pages | 95-106 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Chriti, Maria |
Editor(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis , Ierodiakonou, Katerina |
Translator(s) |
The purpose of this paper is to highlight the obligatory and negative character which is credited to the emergence of human language by some Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle, namely Ammonius of Hermeias, Simplicius and Philoponus. Since the emergence of language is treated by these thinkers as being a result of the “fall”of the soul from the Neoplatonic One, I begin with a brief introduction to the Platonic and Neoplatonic theory of the soul’s separation from the world of the intelligibles and its residual innate knowledge. The second part of my contribution deals with the semantic terms and Neoplatonic principles that Ammonius, Simplicius and Philoponus deploy as they discuss the stimulation of the fallen soul’s content with the help of language, laying stress on the urgent and compulsory presence of vocal sounds in contrast to the non-linguistic communication that prevailed before the soul’s embodiment. In the third part, I explore the concept of ‘diversity’in human language as a consequence of the very emergence of language. Finally, I attempt to explain how the conventionality and diversity of human linguistic communication, abundantly contrasted by these Neoplatonists with the lost unitary status of the soul, came to be viewed by them as symptoms of ‘decay’and ‘obligation’. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0Wo0Qn2Y7sMDExP |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1512","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1512,"authors_free":[{"id":2625,"entry_id":1512,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":561,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chriti, Maria","free_first_name":"Maria","free_last_name":"Chriti","norm_person":{"id":561,"first_name":"Maria","last_name":"Chriti","full_name":"Chriti, Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2628,"entry_id":1512,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2629,"entry_id":1512,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":560,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","free_first_name":"Katerina","free_last_name":"Ierodiakonou","norm_person":{"id":560,"first_name":"Katerina","last_name":"Ierodiakonou","full_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1135990581","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Neoplatonic Commentators of Aristotle on the Origins of Language: A New \u201cTower of Babel\u201d?","main_title":{"title":"The Neoplatonic Commentators of Aristotle on the Origins of Language: A New \u201cTower of Babel\u201d?"},"abstract":"The purpose of this paper is to highlight the obligatory and negative character which is credited to the emergence of human language by some Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle, namely Ammonius of Hermeias, Simplicius and Philoponus. Since the emergence of language is treated by these thinkers as being a result of the \u201cfall\u201dof the soul from the Neoplatonic One, I begin with a brief introduction to the Platonic and Neoplatonic theory of the soul\u2019s separation from the world of the intelligibles and its residual innate knowledge. The second part of my contribution deals with the semantic terms and Neoplatonic principles that Ammonius, Simplicius and Philoponus deploy as they discuss the stimulation of the fallen soul\u2019s content with the help of language, laying stress on the urgent and compulsory presence of vocal sounds in contrast to the non-linguistic communication that prevailed before the soul\u2019s embodiment. In the third part, I explore the concept of \u2018diversity\u2019in human language as a consequence of the very emergence of language. Finally, I attempt to explain how the conventionality and diversity of human linguistic communication, abundantly contrasted by these Neoplatonists with the lost unitary status of the soul, came to be viewed by them as symptoms of \u2018decay\u2019and \u2018obligation\u2019. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0Wo0Qn2Y7sMDExP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":561,"full_name":"Chriti, Maria","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":560,"full_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1512,"section_of":1513,"pages":"95-106","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1513,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2019","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume includes twelve studies by international specialists on Aristotle and his commentators. Among the topics treated are Aristotle's political philosophy and metaphysics, the ancient and Byzantine commentators' scholia on Aristotle's logic, philosophy of language and psychology as well as studies of broader scope on developmentalism in ancient philosophy and the importance of studying Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Gpbk6H9CplQZVge","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1513,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter ","series":"Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina. Quellen und Studien","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2019]}
Title | Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | English |
Date | 2019 |
Publication Place | Berlin – New York |
Publisher | De Gruyter |
Series | Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina. Quellen und Studien |
Volume | 7 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis , Ierodiakonou, Katerina |
Translator(s) |
This volume includes twelve studies by international specialists on Aristotle and his commentators. Among the topics treated are Aristotle's political philosophy and metaphysics, the ancient and Byzantine commentators' scholia on Aristotle's logic, philosophy of language and psychology as well as studies of broader scope on developmentalism in ancient philosophy and the importance of studying Late Antiquity. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JDcdeQjoSV6hLxE |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1513","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1513,"authors_free":[{"id":2626,"entry_id":1513,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2627,"entry_id":1513,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":560,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","free_first_name":"Katerina","free_last_name":"Ierodiakonou","norm_person":{"id":560,"first_name":"Katerina","last_name":"Ierodiakonou","full_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1135990581","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia"},"abstract":"This volume includes twelve studies by international specialists on Aristotle and his commentators. Among the topics treated are Aristotle's political philosophy and metaphysics, the ancient and Byzantine commentators' scholia on Aristotle's logic, philosophy of language and psychology as well as studies of broader scope on developmentalism in ancient philosophy and the importance of studying Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JDcdeQjoSV6hLxE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":560,"full_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1513,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter ","series":"Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina. Quellen und Studien","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2019]}
Title | Alexandre d’Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l’univers |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2017 |
Published in | Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotéliecienne |
Pages | 217-235 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Balansard, Anne , Jaulin, Annick |
Translator(s) |
Les commentaires aristotéliciens de Simplicius, du moins ceux sur le traité Du ciel et sur la Physique, seraient sensiblement différents si l’exégète néoplatonicien n’avait pas eu accès aux commentaires d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise. Simplicius appelle Alexandre « l’étudiant le plus attentif d’Aristote » et ses abondantes références aux explications de l’exégète péripatéticien montrent de manière éloquente que les commentaires de ce dernier étaient pour lui des outils indispensables : ils lui ont permis d’expliquer plusieurs difficultés du texte d’Aristote, exception faite des cas où Aristote critique (ou semble critiquer, comme dirait Simplicius lui-même) Platon. Dans l’un de ces cas, la position de Simplicius envers Alexandre est clairement exprimée : Je crois qu’Alexandre d’Aphrodise, dans les autres cas, suit manifestement de belle manière, plus belle que celle des autres philosophes péripatéticiens, les discours d’Aristote. Pourtant, à propos de ce que dit Aristote contre Platon, il me semble qu’il ne respecte plus le but de l’antilogie d’Aristote, but qui vise l’apparence des discours de Platon, mais il objecte à Platon en quelque sorte avec perfidie, puisqu’il n’essaie pas uniquement de réfuter, lui aussi, le sens apparent de ce que dit Platon par souci envers les gens simples, comme Aristote l’a précisément fait, mais il calomnie les concepts du divin Platon et tente de tirer des conclusions qui ne suivent fréquemment même pas le sens apparent de son discours. Par l’emploi de l’adverbe κακοσχόλως («malicieusement», «avec perfidie»), Simplicius suggère à ses lecteurs qu’Alexandre connaissait en réalité le vrai objectif des critiques d’Aristote, qu’il a pourtant caché à ses propres lecteurs à cause de son appartenance à une secte philosophique, à savoir celle des Péripatéticiens. Les critiques d’Aristote envers Platon font preuve, selon Simplicius, du souci pédagogique du Stagirite ; elles sont mises en œuvre pour protéger les âmes philosophantes des contresens qu’elles risquent de faire en abordant des doctrines philosophiques qui sont difficilement compréhensibles. Les critiques apparentes concernent surtout la doctrine platonicienne de l’âme, comme dans le passage précédemment cité, où Aristote, selon l’interprétation que Simplicius propose contre Alexandre, se livre à une critique apparente du Timée 36e2-4 : « [L’âme], tissée à travers le ciel, du centre à l’extrémité […] commença une vie perpétuelle et raisonnable » (ἡ δὲ ἐκ μέσου πρὸς τὸν ἔσχατον οὐρανὸν πάσῃ διεκλακεῖσα […] ἤρξατο ἀθανάτου καὶ φρονίμου βίου). Si Aristote a ainsi critiqué Platon, c’est pour que les philosophes débutants ne pensent pas, à cause de l’usage en réalité métaphorique du participe διεκλακεῖσα («tissée»), que l’âme du monde, matériellement présente dans le corps céleste, le contraigne à se mouvoir en cercle, ce qui aurait deux conséquences non voulues : Que le mouvement circulaire ne serait pas le mouvement naturel du ciel, Que l’âme, exerçant une contrainte sur le ciel, ne pourrait pas vraiment mener une vie bienheureuse. La critique d’Aristote concerne aussi la thèse, intenable, selon laquelle le monde fut « engendré » (γενητός) dans le temps, thèse qu’Aristote attribue à Platon seulement à un premier niveau de lecture, en adaptant son discours au degré de connaissance des âmes philosophantes. Ces dernières n’arrivent pas encore à saisir le sens de γενητός comme renvoyant, dans le contexte du Timée, à ce qui n’est pas « auto-constituant » (αὐτοσύστατον), mais qui reçoit son existence d’une autre réalité, aussi sous un mode intemporel. Du point de vue de Simplicius, Aristote ne critique pas Platon, mais il critique en guise de préliminaire une fausse interprétation de Platon, afin que les étudiants ne soient pas amenés à croire, par leur lecture superficielle du Timée, à la création du monde. Les critiques que Simplicius adresse à Alexandre, dans son Commentaire au traité Du ciel comme dans son Commentaire à la Physique, sont toutes liées au fait que l’Aphrodisien interprète Aristote à la lettre. Cela vaut aussi pour le problème philosophique que nous nous proposons d’examiner ici, à savoir celui de savoir si l’univers a une cause efficiente ou non. [introduction p. 217-219] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/z0tM2tB9CIsYiik |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1324","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1324,"authors_free":[{"id":1958,"entry_id":1324,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2379,"entry_id":1324,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2384,"entry_id":1324,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l\u2019univers","main_title":{"title":"Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l\u2019univers"},"abstract":"Les commentaires aristot\u00e9liciens de Simplicius, du moins ceux sur le trait\u00e9 Du ciel et sur la Physique, seraient sensiblement diff\u00e9rents si l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8te n\u00e9oplatonicien n\u2019avait pas eu acc\u00e8s aux commentaires d\u2019Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise. Simplicius appelle Alexandre \u00ab l\u2019\u00e9tudiant le plus attentif d\u2019Aristote \u00bb et ses abondantes r\u00e9f\u00e9rences aux explications de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8te p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticien montrent de mani\u00e8re \u00e9loquente que les commentaires de ce dernier \u00e9taient pour lui des outils indispensables : ils lui ont permis d\u2019expliquer plusieurs difficult\u00e9s du texte d\u2019Aristote, exception faite des cas o\u00f9 Aristote critique (ou semble critiquer, comme dirait Simplicius lui-m\u00eame) Platon. Dans l\u2019un de ces cas, la position de Simplicius envers Alexandre est clairement exprim\u00e9e :\r\n\r\n Je crois qu\u2019Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, dans les autres cas, suit manifestement de belle mani\u00e8re, plus belle que celle des autres philosophes p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, les discours d\u2019Aristote. Pourtant, \u00e0 propos de ce que dit Aristote contre Platon, il me semble qu\u2019il ne respecte plus le but de l\u2019antilogie d\u2019Aristote, but qui vise l\u2019apparence des discours de Platon, mais il objecte \u00e0 Platon en quelque sorte avec perfidie, puisqu\u2019il n\u2019essaie pas uniquement de r\u00e9futer, lui aussi, le sens apparent de ce que dit Platon par souci envers les gens simples, comme Aristote l\u2019a pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment fait, mais il calomnie les concepts du divin Platon et tente de tirer des conclusions qui ne suivent fr\u00e9quemment m\u00eame pas le sens apparent de son discours.\r\n\r\nPar l\u2019emploi de l\u2019adverbe \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 (\u00abmalicieusement\u00bb, \u00abavec perfidie\u00bb), Simplicius sugg\u00e8re \u00e0 ses lecteurs qu\u2019Alexandre connaissait en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 le vrai objectif des critiques d\u2019Aristote, qu\u2019il a pourtant cach\u00e9 \u00e0 ses propres lecteurs \u00e0 cause de son appartenance \u00e0 une secte philosophique, \u00e0 savoir celle des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens. Les critiques d\u2019Aristote envers Platon font preuve, selon Simplicius, du souci p\u00e9dagogique du Stagirite ; elles sont mises en \u0153uvre pour prot\u00e9ger les \u00e2mes philosophantes des contresens qu\u2019elles risquent de faire en abordant des doctrines philosophiques qui sont difficilement compr\u00e9hensibles.\r\n\r\nLes critiques apparentes concernent surtout la doctrine platonicienne de l\u2019\u00e2me, comme dans le passage pr\u00e9c\u00e9demment cit\u00e9, o\u00f9 Aristote, selon l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation que Simplicius propose contre Alexandre, se livre \u00e0 une critique apparente du Tim\u00e9e 36e2-4 :\r\n\r\n \u00ab [L\u2019\u00e2me], tiss\u00e9e \u00e0 travers le ciel, du centre \u00e0 l\u2019extr\u00e9mit\u00e9 [\u2026] commen\u00e7a une vie perp\u00e9tuelle et raisonnable \u00bb (\u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 [\u2026] \u1f24\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5).\r\n\r\nSi Aristote a ainsi critiqu\u00e9 Platon, c\u2019est pour que les philosophes d\u00e9butants ne pensent pas, \u00e0 cause de l\u2019usage en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 m\u00e9taphorique du participe \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 (\u00abtiss\u00e9e\u00bb), que l\u2019\u00e2me du monde, mat\u00e9riellement pr\u00e9sente dans le corps c\u00e9leste, le contraigne \u00e0 se mouvoir en cercle, ce qui aurait deux cons\u00e9quences non voulues :\r\n\r\n Que le mouvement circulaire ne serait pas le mouvement naturel du ciel,\r\n Que l\u2019\u00e2me, exer\u00e7ant une contrainte sur le ciel, ne pourrait pas vraiment mener une vie bienheureuse.\r\n\r\nLa critique d\u2019Aristote concerne aussi la th\u00e8se, intenable, selon laquelle le monde fut \u00ab engendr\u00e9 \u00bb (\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2) dans le temps, th\u00e8se qu\u2019Aristote attribue \u00e0 Platon seulement \u00e0 un premier niveau de lecture, en adaptant son discours au degr\u00e9 de connaissance des \u00e2mes philosophantes. Ces derni\u00e8res n\u2019arrivent pas encore \u00e0 saisir le sens de \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 comme renvoyant, dans le contexte du Tim\u00e9e, \u00e0 ce qui n\u2019est pas \u00ab auto-constituant \u00bb (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd), mais qui re\u00e7oit son existence d\u2019une autre r\u00e9alit\u00e9, aussi sous un mode intemporel.\r\n\r\nDu point de vue de Simplicius, Aristote ne critique pas Platon, mais il critique en guise de pr\u00e9liminaire une fausse interpr\u00e9tation de Platon, afin que les \u00e9tudiants ne soient pas amen\u00e9s \u00e0 croire, par leur lecture superficielle du Tim\u00e9e, \u00e0 la cr\u00e9ation du monde.\r\n\r\nLes critiques que Simplicius adresse \u00e0 Alexandre, dans son Commentaire au trait\u00e9 Du ciel comme dans son Commentaire \u00e0 la Physique, sont toutes li\u00e9es au fait que l\u2019Aphrodisien interpr\u00e8te Aristote \u00e0 la lettre. Cela vaut aussi pour le probl\u00e8me philosophique que nous nous proposons d\u2019examiner ici, \u00e0 savoir celui de savoir si l\u2019univers a une cause efficiente ou non.\r\n[introduction p. 217-219]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/z0tM2tB9CIsYiik","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","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":1324,"section_of":273,"pages":"217-235","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 | La réception de la théologie d’Aristote chez Michel d’Éphèse et quelques auteurs néoplatoniciens |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2017 |
Published in | Réceptions de la théologie aristotélicienne: D'Aristote à Michel d'Ephèse |
Pages | 239-256 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Baghdassarian, Fabienne |
Translator(s) |
This text discusses the reception of Aristotelian theology by Michel of Ephesus and some Neoplatonic authors. Michel is known for his commentaries on Aristotle's works, particularly the Ethics, which he wrote at the request of Princess Anne Comnène. Michel's personal tone and spirituality in his commentaries, particularly his invocation to Christ at the end of his commentary on the Ethics, may have been influenced by his teacher, Jean Italos, who was condemned for heresy in 1082 for accepting the Platonic Model of Ideas as real. Michel's praise of his teacher revolves around the Aristotelian concept of God as pure intellection, intelligible by rational souls, and the possibility for humans to participate in this Intellection. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gn5g7p3dYNiGdlE |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1325","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1325,"authors_free":[{"id":1959,"entry_id":1325,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2380,"entry_id":1325,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":130,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baghdassarian, Fabienne","free_first_name":"Fabienne","free_last_name":"Baghdassarian","norm_person":{"id":130,"first_name":"Fabienne","last_name":"Baghdassarian","full_name":"Baghdassarian, Fabienne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1116095602","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La r\u00e9ception de la th\u00e9ologie d\u2019Aristote chez Michel d\u2019\u00c9ph\u00e8se et quelques auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens","main_title":{"title":"La r\u00e9ception de la th\u00e9ologie d\u2019Aristote chez Michel d\u2019\u00c9ph\u00e8se et quelques auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens"},"abstract":"This text discusses the reception of Aristotelian theology by Michel of Ephesus and some Neoplatonic authors. Michel is known for his commentaries on Aristotle's works, particularly the Ethics, which he wrote at the request of Princess Anne Comn\u00e8ne. Michel's personal tone and spirituality in his commentaries, particularly his invocation to Christ at the end of his commentary on the Ethics, may have been influenced by his teacher, Jean Italos, who was condemned for heresy in 1082 for accepting the Platonic Model of Ideas as real. Michel's praise of his teacher revolves around the Aristotelian concept of God as pure intellection, intelligible by rational souls, and the possibility for humans to participate in this Intellection. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gn5g7p3dYNiGdlE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":130,"full_name":"Baghdassarian, Fabienne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1325,"section_of":1327,"pages":"239-256","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1327,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"R\u00e9ceptions de la th\u00e9ologie aristot\u00e9licienne: D'Aristote \u00e0 Michel d'Eph\u00e8se","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"La conception aristot\u00e9licienne des principes divins est parcourue de tensions \u00e9pist\u00e9mologiques, arch\u00e9ologiques et proprement th\u00e9ologiques, qui constituent \u00e0 la fois un d\u00e9fi pour Aristote lui-m\u00eame et un ensemble de probl\u00e8mes qu'il l\u00e8gue \u00e0 la tradition, qu'elle se revendique de lui, ou se fasse critique \u00e0 son \u00e9gard. Restitu\u00e9e au mouvement de la tradition, aux vicissitudes de ses relectures, la th\u00e9ologie aristot\u00e9licienne voit s'actualiser les potentialit\u00e9s qu'elle portait en son sein, et qu'Aristote lui-m\u00eame, d\u00e9j\u00e0, commen\u00e7ait d'explorer. Ce volume, sans pr\u00e9tendre \u00e0 l'exhaustivit\u00e9, souhaite, par la diversit\u00e9 de ses contributions, donner \u00e0 lire quelques-unes de ces actualisations, qu'elles soient ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques ou pol\u00e9miques, et tracer quelques lin\u00e9aments de leurs effets historiques. [Editor's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M6C8JJNritLlEmQ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1327,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Peeters Publishers","series":"Aristote. Traductions Et Etudes","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2017]}
Title | La critique aristotélicienne des Idées en Physique II 2 et l’interprétation de Simplicius |
Type | Article |
Language | French |
Date | 2017 |
Journal | Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques |
Volume | 101 |
Pages | 569-584 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
In Physics II 2, 193b35–194a1, Aristotle criticizes in passing the partisans of the Ideas, comparing them to the mathematicians. The present article first attempts to specify the identity of the Academicians Aristotle has in view and to explain how their method resembles the mathematical one. In a second step, the article sheds light on Simplicius' manner of deflecting the Aristotelian critique, showing that, despite appearances, the Stagirite acknowledges that the forms of natural realities, after the fashion of mathematical realities, can be thought of separately, that is to say, without matter. The Neoplatonist's reflection casts new light on the notion of methexis, basically identical to that of phusikos logos or "form in itself," which is like intelligible Form. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CX8My3vkHJrymmk |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1509","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1509,"authors_free":[{"id":2622,"entry_id":1509,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La critique aristot\u00e9licienne des Id\u00e9es en Physique II 2 et l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"La critique aristot\u00e9licienne des Id\u00e9es en Physique II 2 et l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Simplicius"},"abstract":"In Physics II 2, 193b35\u2013194a1, Aristotle criticizes in passing the partisans of the Ideas, comparing them to the mathematicians. The present article first attempts to specify the identity of the Academicians Aristotle has in view and to explain how their method resembles the mathematical one.\r\n\r\nIn a second step, the article sheds light on Simplicius' manner of deflecting the Aristotelian critique, showing that, despite appearances, the Stagirite acknowledges that the forms of natural realities, after the fashion of mathematical realities, can be thought of separately, that is to say, without matter.\r\n\r\nThe Neoplatonist's reflection casts new light on the notion of methexis, basically identical to that of phusikos logos or \"form in itself,\" which is like intelligible Form. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CX8My3vkHJrymmk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1509,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Th\u00e9ologiques","volume":"101","issue":"","pages":"569-584"}},"sort":[2017]}
Title | Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity |
Pages | 419-438 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Falcon, Andrea |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius of Cilicia and John Philoponus of Alexandria share many common features but differ in one most important respect: their interpretation of Aristotle. They were contemporaries and both attended the seminars of Ammonius, son of Hermias, in Alexandria. Ammonius (died shortly before AD 517) was a Neoplatonist who focused his teaching more on Aristotle than on Plato, and it was presumably under his influence that both Simplicius and Philoponus commented on Aristotle and not on Plato. Throughout their commentaries, however, one is guided to radically opposing interpretations of Aristotle’s philosophy. Simplicius endeavored to establish Aristotle not only as an unshakable authority in philosophy of language and natural philosophy but also as a philosopher who fully shared with Plato knowledge of the divine truth (i.e., the truth about the first realities of the cosmos: the Soul, the Intelligence, and the One). Philoponus, on the other hand, rejected Aristotle as an authority, countered many of his arguments in his Aristotelian commentaries, and openly opposed Aristotle in his treatise On the Eternity of the World against Aristotle. One should abstain, however, from thinking in a simplistic manner of Simplicius as the “traditionalist” and of Philoponus as the “modernist.” Philoponus seems to have fully accepted the authority of Moses while commenting on Genesis, and the fully equal rank that Simplicius granted to Aristotle and Plato was a novelty within the Neoplatonic tradition. Both philosophers, we might say, served a religious purpose by using a philosophical method; they both had recourse to philosophical exegesis, the former in order to demolish Hellenic authorities and establish the truth of Christianity, mainly its doctrine of creationism, the latter in order to defend Hellenism as a unitary and perennial system of thought. [introduction p. 419-420] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TO7oBHK7aGfz4Zy |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1323","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1323,"authors_free":[{"id":1957,"entry_id":1323,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2222,"entry_id":1323,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle"},"abstract":"Simplicius of Cilicia and John Philoponus of Alexandria share many common features but differ in one most important respect: their interpretation of Aristotle. They were contemporaries and both attended the seminars of Ammonius, son of Hermias, in Alexandria. Ammonius (died shortly before AD 517) was a Neoplatonist who focused his teaching more on Aristotle than on Plato, and it was presumably under his influence that both Simplicius and Philoponus commented on Aristotle and not on Plato. Throughout their commentaries, however, one is guided to radically opposing interpretations of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy.\r\n\r\nSimplicius endeavored to establish Aristotle not only as an unshakable authority in philosophy of language and natural philosophy but also as a philosopher who fully shared with Plato knowledge of the divine truth (i.e., the truth about the first realities of the cosmos: the Soul, the Intelligence, and the One). Philoponus, on the other hand, rejected Aristotle as an authority, countered many of his arguments in his Aristotelian commentaries, and openly opposed Aristotle in his treatise On the Eternity of the World against Aristotle. One should abstain, however, from thinking in a simplistic manner of Simplicius as the \u201ctraditionalist\u201d and of Philoponus as the \u201cmodernist.\u201d\r\n\r\nPhiloponus seems to have fully accepted the authority of Moses while commenting on Genesis, and the fully equal rank that Simplicius granted to Aristotle and Plato was a novelty within the Neoplatonic tradition. Both philosophers, we might say, served a religious purpose by using a philosophical method; they both had recourse to philosophical exegesis, the former in order to demolish Hellenic authorities and establish the truth of Christianity, mainly its doctrine of creationism, the latter in order to defend Hellenism as a unitary and perennial system of thought. [introduction p. 419-420]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TO7oBHK7aGfz4Zy","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1323,"section_of":304,"pages":"419-438","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":304,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Falcon2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2016","abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TjdS065EwQq3iWS","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":304,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2016]}
Title | John Philoponus’ Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle’s De Anima, Wrongly Attributed to Stephanus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 393-412 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Philoponus’ denial of the existence of unformed matter in his Contra Proclum, composed in 529, allows us to date the commentary on DA 3 before the Contra Proclum, since the existence of unformed matter is accepted in the former work. To conclude: we should discard Stephanus as a possible author of in DA 3, which is an attribution depending on a Byzantine addition to a manuscript with no title, and reassign this commentary to Philoponus on the grounds of self-reference, exegetical attitude, and general style. This commentary, possibly through the initiative of a pupil who recorded it, replaced Ammonius’ commentary on Book 3, as previously published by Philoponus, thus allowing two different editions to reach Byzantium: Philoponus’ edition of Ammonius’ lectures and the composite edition in which Ammonius’ lectures on Book 3 were replaced by those of Philoponus. The second edition was the one copied by D1, whereas D3 had access only to the first edition. [conclusion p. 412] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QH2oMIgPb9H8EAI |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1418","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1418,"authors_free":[{"id":2219,"entry_id":1418,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2221,"entry_id":1418,"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":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","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":"John Philoponus\u2019 Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima, Wrongly Attributed to Stephanus","main_title":{"title":"John Philoponus\u2019 Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima, Wrongly Attributed to Stephanus"},"abstract":"Philoponus\u2019 denial of the existence of unformed matter in his Contra Proclum, composed in 529, allows us to date the commentary on DA 3 before the Contra Proclum, since the existence of unformed matter is accepted in the former work.\r\n\r\nTo conclude: we should discard Stephanus as a possible author of in DA 3, which is an attribution depending on a Byzantine addition to a manuscript with no title, and reassign this commentary to Philoponus on the grounds of self-reference, exegetical attitude, and general style. This commentary, possibly through the initiative of a pupil who recorded it, replaced Ammonius\u2019 commentary on Book 3, as previously published by Philoponus, thus allowing two different editions to reach Byzantium: Philoponus\u2019 edition of Ammonius\u2019 lectures and the composite edition in which Ammonius\u2019 lectures on Book 3 were replaced by those of Philoponus. The second edition was the one copied by D1, whereas D3 had access only to the first edition. [conclusion p. 412]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QH2oMIgPb9H8EAI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1418,"section_of":1419,"pages":"393-412","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":"","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\/thdAvlIvWl4EdKB","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 | Simplicius’ Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 531–540 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe , Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius’ Corollary on Place (Corollarium de loco) is not a doxographic text but a strictly Neoplatonic philosophical work, with its own philosophical method. It takes the form of a digression interrupting the continuity of Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (itself a written work intended for readers, hoi entugkhanontes, hoi enteuxomenoi), and its literary genre is that of a monograph treatise using dialectic and exegesis as its principal methods. The dialectical method consists in discussing the opinions of Simplicius’ predecessors, ancient and modern, mainly Aristotle and Proclus, to pave the way for the exposition of the truth, following the method inaugurated by Aristotle in the Topics and still very much alive. It also proceeds by puzzles and solutions (aporiai kai luseis). Th e exegetic method reappears even within a digression which breaks with the continuous commentary and Simplicius devotes sometimes long passages to quoting and commenting on texts from Aristotle, Theophrastus, Proclus, and Damascius, but also from the Chaldaean Oracles, Iamblichus, or Syrianus. Throughout this piece Simplicius maintains complete control over his material which includes the art of rhetoric, dialectical technique, and his philosophic intention. In it, he replaces the Aristotelian defi nition of place (‘the first unmoved boundary of the surrounding body’ (to tou periekhontos peras akinêton prôton), Phys . 4.4, 212a20–1) with a new defi nition taken from his master Damascius (place is the measure of the intrinsic positioning (metron tês theseôs) of the parts of a body, and of its right position in a greater surrounding whole), and he departs from Aristotle’s thought with a radical innovation which progressively works its way in. [introduction p. 531-532] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nyFqYhK3Z7baSF2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1508","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1508,"authors_free":[{"id":2619,"entry_id":1508,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2620,"entry_id":1508,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2621,"entry_id":1508,"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":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","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":"Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines"},"abstract":"Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place (Corollarium de loco) is not a doxographic text but a strictly Neoplatonic philosophical work, with its own philosophical method. It takes the form of a digression interrupting the continuity of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics (itself a written work intended for readers, hoi entugkhanontes, hoi enteuxomenoi), and its literary genre is that of a monograph treatise using dialectic and exegesis as its principal methods. The dialectical method consists in discussing the opinions of Simplicius\u2019 predecessors, ancient and modern, mainly Aristotle and Proclus, to pave the way for the exposition of the truth, following the method inaugurated by Aristotle in the Topics and still very much alive. It also proceeds by puzzles and solutions (aporiai kai luseis). Th e exegetic method reappears even within a digression which breaks with the continuous commentary and Simplicius devotes sometimes long passages to quoting and commenting on texts from Aristotle, Theophrastus, Proclus, and Damascius, but also from the Chaldaean Oracles, Iamblichus, or Syrianus. Throughout this piece Simplicius maintains complete control over his material which includes the art of rhetoric, dialectical technique, and his philosophic intention. In it, he replaces the Aristotelian defi nition of place (\u2018the first unmoved boundary of the surrounding body\u2019 (to tou periekhontos peras akin\u00eaton pr\u00f4ton), Phys . 4.4, 212a20\u20131) with a new defi nition taken from his master Damascius (place is the measure of the intrinsic positioning (metron t\u00eas these\u00f4s) of the parts of a body, and of its right position in a greater surrounding whole), and he departs from Aristotle\u2019s thought with a radical innovation which progressively works its way in. [introduction p. 531-532]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nyFqYhK3Z7baSF2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1508,"section_of":1419,"pages":"531\u2013540","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 | On Simplicius’ Life and Works: A Response to Hadot |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2015 |
Journal | Aestimatio |
Volume | 12 |
Pages | 56-82 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
This text is a response to Ilsetraut Hadot's book, "Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contem¬poraines. Un bilan critique," which provides a critical overview of scholarly research on the Neoplatonist Simplicius. The author critiques Hadot's approach, arguing that her use of the Neoplatonic curriculum and medieval testimonies is an unsafe guide for assessing Simplicius' life and works. The article concludes by thanking Hadot for her previous work on Simplicius and acknowledging the value of her contributions to the field. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iph5X72ry3ZiZ9P |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1322","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1322,"authors_free":[{"id":1956,"entry_id":1322,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"On Simplicius\u2019 Life and Works: A Response to Hadot","main_title":{"title":"On Simplicius\u2019 Life and Works: A Response to Hadot"},"abstract":"This text is a response to Ilsetraut Hadot's book, \"Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contem\u00acporaines. Un bilan critique,\" which provides a critical overview of scholarly research on the Neoplatonist Simplicius. The author critiques Hadot's approach, arguing that her use of the Neoplatonic curriculum and medieval testimonies is an unsafe guide for assessing Simplicius' life and works. The article concludes by thanking Hadot for her previous work on Simplicius and acknowledging the value of her contributions to the field. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iph5X72ry3ZiZ9P","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1322,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Aestimatio","volume":"12","issue":"","pages":"56-82"}},"sort":[2015]}
Title | Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2015 |
Journal | Revue d’histoire des textes, nouvelle série |
Volume | 10 |
Pages | 1-23 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
One of the less felicitous terms in textual criticism, despite its being amply used in modern scholarship, is the term « contamination » (Kontamination), which Paul Maas first coined in his famous Textkritik. By modern-day standards the term is supposed to account, roughly, for two phenomena : (1) the phenomenon of having variant readings in margine or inter lineas of a text, which is an obvious sign that, next to the principal model, at least one other manuscript has been at some point involved in the copying of the text ; (2) the more complicated phenomenon of detecting in the body of the text readings that are not expected to be found there. What we detect in (2) is in principle the result of what has happened in (1). Any scholar acquainted with Byzantine manuscripts produced from the ninth century down to the Fall of Constantinople should know that cases like those described above were frequent in Byzantium’s Buchwesen, provided that an adequately circulating text was concerned. As Byzantine scribes and scholars mostly worked and studied in significant libraries that owned several copies of the same text, the idea of comparing them in order to verify dubious readings and to produce a more satisfying text would naturally occur to their mind. Scribes and scholars in Byzantium were well aware that material damages and copyist errors could happen. And as we nowadays do, they tried to counter such textual problems by collating different manuscripts – not by contaminating them. If we leave aside copies made purely for commercial purposes, we can reasonably say that collation of at least two manuscripts before producing a new copy of a text was something of a rule in Byzantium. I shall henceforth call this rule « the principle of collation » ; it can be formulated like this : « Unless otherwise proved, each Byzantine copy of an adequately circulating text is the product of collation of at least two different manuscripts. » [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/HitzMXpWqjAaGGB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1417","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1417,"authors_free":[{"id":2218,"entry_id":1417,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis ","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq","main_title":{"title":"Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq"},"abstract":"One of the less felicitous terms in textual criticism, despite its being amply used in modern scholarship, is the term \u00ab contamination \u00bb (Kontamination), which Paul Maas first coined in his famous Textkritik. By modern-day standards the term is supposed to account, roughly, for two phenomena : (1) the phenomenon of having variant readings in margine or inter lineas of a text, which is an obvious sign that, next to the principal model, at least one other manuscript has been at some point involved in the copying of the text ; (2) the more complicated phenomenon of detecting in the body of the text readings that are not expected to be found there. What we detect in (2) is in principle the result of what has happened in (1). Any scholar acquainted with Byzantine manuscripts produced from the ninth century down to the Fall of Constantinople should know that cases like those described above were frequent in Byzantium\u2019s Buchwesen, provided that an adequately circulating text was concerned. As Byzantine scribes and scholars mostly worked and studied in significant libraries that owned several copies of the same text, the idea of comparing them in order to verify dubious readings and to produce a more satisfying text would naturally occur to their mind. Scribes and scholars in Byzantium were well aware that material damages and copyist errors could happen. And as we nowadays do, they tried to counter such textual problems by collating different manuscripts \u2013 not by contaminating them. If we leave aside copies made purely for commercial purposes, we can reasonably say that collation of at least two manuscripts before producing a new copy of a text was something of a rule in Byzantium. I shall henceforth call this rule \u00ab the principle of collation \u00bb ; it can be formulated like this : \u00ab Unless otherwise proved, each Byzantine copy of an adequately circulating text is the product of \r\ncollation of at least two different manuscripts. \u00bb [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HitzMXpWqjAaGGB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1417,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue d\u2019histoire des textes, nouvelle s\u00e9rie","volume":"10","issue":"","pages":"1-23"}},"sort":[2015]}
Title | Simplicius et le “lieu”. À propos d’une nouvelle édition du Corollarium de loco |
Type | Article |
Language | French |
Date | 2014 |
Journal | Revue des Études Grecques |
Volume | 127 |
Issue | 1 |
Pages | 119-175 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis , Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
The digression labelled “Corollarium de loco” by Hermann Diels in his edition of Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, IX, Berlin 1882) is a key text in the debate - often referred to by specialists as magna quaestio - generated by an apparent lack of consistency between Aristotle’s definition of ‘place’ (topos) as “the first unmoved boundary of the surrounding body” (Phys. IV, 4, 212 a 20-21) and his assertion that the Heaven moves in a circle while not being ‘somewhere’, since it is not surrounded by any body that would be exterior to it. Following the steps of his master Damascius, and at the end of a long discussion initiated by Neoplatonists after Plotinus (principally by Iamblichus, Proclus and Syrianus), Simplicius replaces Aristotle’s definition with a new definition of place as a “gathering (or uniting) measure” (metron sunagôgon), which is one of the four “measures” (number, size, place, time) or gathering powers that protect the intelligible and sensible entities against the dangers of the dispersion related to the procession of reality. This doctrine places physics in a decidedly theological perspective since, in last analysis, these uniting powers derive from the One or Good per se. Our understanding of this crucial text for our knowledge of the Neoplatonic philosophy of Nature will be improved thanks to a new critical edition (with French translation and notes), to be published soon in the collection “Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca and Byzantina” (by Walter de Gruyter) under the auspices of the Academy of Sciences of Bcrlin-Brandenburg. The new edition is based not only on a fresh collation of the two manuscripts used by Diels (Marciani graeci 227 and 229) but also on a Moscow manuscript (Mosquensis Muz. 3649) unknown to the German scholar, since it belonged during the nineteenth century to a private Russian collection. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CopNdLIRs5QEoZb |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1321","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1321,"authors_free":[{"id":1955,"entry_id":1321,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2378,"entry_id":1321,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius et le \u201clieu\u201d. \u00c0 propos d\u2019une nouvelle \u00e9dition du Corollarium de loco","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius et le \u201clieu\u201d. \u00c0 propos d\u2019une nouvelle \u00e9dition du Corollarium de loco"},"abstract":"The digression labelled \u201cCorollarium de loco\u201d by Hermann Diels in his edition of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, IX, Berlin 1882) is a key text in the debate - often referred to by specialists as magna quaestio - generated by an apparent lack of consistency between Aristotle\u2019s definition of \u2018place\u2019 (topos) as \u201cthe first unmoved boundary \r\nof the surrounding body\u201d (Phys. IV, 4, 212 a 20-21) and his assertion that the Heaven moves in a circle while not being \u2018somewhere\u2019, since it is not surrounded by any body that would be exterior to it. Following the steps of his master Damascius, and at the end of a long discussion initiated by Neoplatonists after Plotinus (principally by Iamblichus, Proclus and Syrianus), Simplicius replaces Aristotle\u2019s definition with a new definition of place as a \u201cgathering (or uniting) measure\u201d (metron sunag\u00f4gon), which is one of the four \u201cmeasures\u201d (number, size, place, time) or gathering powers that protect the intelligible and sensible \r\nentities against the dangers of the dispersion related to the procession of reality. This doctrine places physics in a decidedly theological perspective since, in last analysis, these uniting powers derive from the One or Good per se. Our under\u00adstanding of this crucial text for our knowledge of the Neoplatonic philosophy of \r\nNature will be improved thanks to a new critical edition (with French translation and notes), to be published soon in the collection \u201cCommentaria in Aristotelem Graeca and Byzantina\u201d (by Walter de Gruyter) under the auspices of the Academy \r\nof Sciences of Bcrlin-Brandenburg. The new edition is based not only on a fresh collation of the two manuscripts used by Diels (Marciani graeci 227 and 229) but also on a Moscow manuscript (Mosquensis Muz. 3649) unknown to the Ger\u00adman scholar, since it belonged during the nineteenth century to a private Russian \r\ncollection. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CopNdLIRs5QEoZb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1321,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des \u00c9tudes Grecques ","volume":"127","issue":"1","pages":"119-175"}},"sort":[2014]}
Title | Les Commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon à La Physique d’Aristote: Tradition et Innovation |
Type | Monograph |
Language | French |
Date | 2008 |
Publication Place | Berlin – New York |
Publisher | de Gruyter |
Series | Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina |
Volume | 3 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
In der griechischen Spätantike definiert sich die Philosophie vor allem über die Auslegung autoritativer Texte wie der Dialoge Platons oder der Abhandlungen des Aristoteles. In der vorliegenden Studie werden die letzten spätantiken Kommentare des Heiden Simplikios und des Christen Philoponos (beide 6. Jh. n.Chr.) zu Aristoteles’ Physik untersucht. Golitsis zeigt auf, wie unterschiedlich die beiden Zeitgenossen die philosophische Tradition bewerten undwelchunterschiedlichen Wegzur Wahrheitsfindung sie daraus ableiten. Der Autor wurde für dieses Buch mit dem "Prix Zographos" der "Association pour l'Encouragement des Études Grecques" ausgezeichnet. [author’s abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/p4M88GaW4sKfDxE |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"26","_score":null,"_source":{"id":26,"authors_free":[{"id":29,"entry_id":26,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les Commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon \u00e0 La Physique d\u2019Aristote: Tradition et Innovation","main_title":{"title":"Les Commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon \u00e0 La Physique d\u2019Aristote: Tradition et Innovation"},"abstract":"In der griechischen Sp\u00e4tantike definiert sich die Philosophie vor allem \u00fcber die Auslegung autoritativer Texte wie der Dialoge Platons oder der Abhandlungen des Aristoteles. In der vorliegenden Studie werden die letzten sp\u00e4tantiken Kommentare des Heiden Simplikios und des Christen Philoponos (beide 6. Jh. n.Chr.) zu Aristoteles\u2019 Physik untersucht. Golitsis zeigt auf, wie unterschiedlich die beiden Zeitgenossen die philosophische Tradition bewerten undwelchunterschiedlichen Wegzur Wahrheitsfindung sie daraus ableiten. Der Autor wurde f\u00fcr dieses Buch mit dem \"Prix Zographos\" der \"Association pour l'Encouragement des \u00c9tudes Grecques\" ausgezeichnet. [author\u2019s abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2008","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/p4M88GaW4sKfDxE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":26,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2008]}
Title | Un commentaire perpétuel de Georges Pachymère à la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribué à Michel Psellos |
Type | Article |
Language | French |
Date | 2007 |
Journal | Byzantinische Zeitschrift |
Volume | 100 |
Issue | 2 |
Pages | 637-676 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Récapitulons l'essentiel des raisonnements philologiques qui nous ont permis de restituer le véritable auteur du commentaire, qui dorénavant doit être attribué à Georges Pachymère. Nous avons vu que l'ensemble de la tradition manuscrite qui attribue le commentaire à Psellos descend d'un ancêtre commun, l'Ambrosianus H 44 sup., écrit à la fin du XIVᵉ siècle. Celui-ci remonte pourtant à un archétype, écrit vers l'an 1300 et aujourd'hui perdu (l'Escorialensis D. IV. 24), dans lequel le commentaire figurait sous le nom de Pachymère, ainsi que nous avons pu le montrer grâce au Vindobonensis phil. gr. 248 et à des témoignages du XVIᵉ siècle. Cet archétype de l'ensemble de la tradition manuscrite du commentaire a été copié sur le Laurentianus plut. 87,5, autographe stricto sensu de Pachymère, dont il se servait pour assurer son enseignement de la Physique. [Conclusion, p. 676] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VvESFt1BJvfvNnQ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"536","_score":null,"_source":{"id":536,"authors_free":[{"id":758,"entry_id":536,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Un commentaire perp\u00e9tuel de Georges Pachym\u00e8re \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Michel Psellos","main_title":{"title":"Un commentaire perp\u00e9tuel de Georges Pachym\u00e8re \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Michel Psellos"},"abstract":"R\u00e9capitulons l'essentiel des raisonnements philologiques qui nous ont permis de restituer le v\u00e9ritable auteur du commentaire, qui dor\u00e9navant doit \u00eatre attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Georges Pachym\u00e8re.\r\n\r\nNous avons vu que l'ensemble de la tradition manuscrite qui attribue le commentaire \u00e0 Psellos descend d'un anc\u00eatre commun, l'Ambrosianus H 44 sup., \u00e9crit \u00e0 la fin du XIV\u1d49 si\u00e8cle. Celui-ci remonte pourtant \u00e0 un arch\u00e9type, \u00e9crit vers l'an 1300 et aujourd'hui perdu (l'Escorialensis D. IV. 24), dans lequel le commentaire figurait sous le nom de Pachym\u00e8re, ainsi que nous avons pu le montrer gr\u00e2ce au Vindobonensis phil. gr. 248 et \u00e0 des t\u00e9moignages du XVI\u1d49 si\u00e8cle.\r\n\r\nCet arch\u00e9type de l'ensemble de la tradition manuscrite du commentaire a \u00e9t\u00e9 copi\u00e9 sur le Laurentianus plut. 87,5, autographe stricto sensu de Pachym\u00e8re, dont il se servait pour assurer son enseignement de la Physique.\r\n\r\n[Conclusion, p. 676]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VvESFt1BJvfvNnQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":536,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Byzantinische Zeitschrift ","volume":"100","issue":"2","pages":"637-676"}},"sort":[2007]}
Title | Nicéphore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2007 |
Published in | The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network "Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D’Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endreß, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche |
Pages | 243-256 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | D'Ancona Costa, Cristina |
Translator(s) |
Les qualités que certains philologues ou historiens de la philosophie assignent communément de nos jours au commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote sont en effet reconnues de longue date. Par la clarté des exposés et la pertinence de l’exégèse, ce commentaire a joui d’une longue postérité chez les érudits et philosophes byzantins. En témoigne d’emblée l’abondance des manuscrits du commentaire produits à l’époque byzantine : presque une quarantaine d’entre eux sont conservés aujourd’hui, soit le quadruple par rapport au nombre des manuscrits contenant le commentaire sur le même ouvrage de son contemporain Jean Philopon. L’utilisation de ce commentaire à Byzance a été presque constante, de Michel Psellos jusqu’à Pléthon et Georges Scholarios, mais la partie de l’Epitomé isagogique (Εἰσαγωγική ἐπιτομή) de Nicéphore Blemmyde (1197-1272) qui se rapporte à la Physique d’Aristote en représente le point culminant. Avant d’aborder l’étude qui nous intéresse ici particulièrement, quelques brèves précisions sur la nature de l’ouvrage seront utiles. L’Epitomé isagogique – autrement dit Abrégé introductif – est un compendium scolaire divisé en deux parties, une partie logique et une partie physique (appelées communément Epitomé logique et Epitomé physique), qui se propose de rassembler, dans 40 et 31 chapitres respectivement, l’essentiel de la logique et de la physique (y compris l’astronomie), la partie physique ayant été publiée dans sa forme finale vers l’an 1260. L’Epitomé de Blemmyde n’appartient évidemment pas au genre du commentaire stricto sensu. Elle est construite non pas sur des textes faisant autorité mais plutôt sur des thèmes philosophiques, qui sont annoncés par le titre de chacun de ses chapitres. Ceci dit, l’ouvrage ne porte pas les marques distinctives de l’érudition philologique tardo-antique : il y manque les spéculations étendues déclenchées par ce qui est dit ou n’est pas dit dans le texte qui fait autorité, la mention des auteurs antérieurs, les citations précises. On a ici affaire non pas à un commentateur, mais plutôt à un compilateur soucieux de rassembler les sujets philosophiques les plus pertinents et nécessaires (τὰ καρικώτερα καὶ τὰ ἀναγκαιότερα, comme il le dit lui-même dans son autobiographie). Les matériaux à partir desquels les 31 chapitres de l’Epitomé physique sont mis en place sont empruntés surtout aux commentaires tardo-antiques : les commentaires de Simplicius à la Physique et au traité Du ciel, le commentaire de Jean Philopon au traité De la génération et de la corruption et celui d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise aux Météorologiques. C’est précisément le rapport de l’Epitomé physique avec le commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique – la source majeure pour les dix premiers chapitres – qui va nous occuper dans la suite. Nous tâcherons d’aborder ce rapport dans une double perspective : faire apparaître, d’une part, les emprunts philosophiques principaux et exclusifs de Blemmyde à Simplicius et évaluer, d’autre part – en considération du fait que Blemmyde reproduit assez fidèlement des passages entiers de son modèle – le rôle de l’Epitomé comme source indirecte de la tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius. [introduction p. 243-244] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wkrCGs8qhVRUK0j |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1319","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1319,"authors_free":[{"id":1953,"entry_id":1319,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2375,"entry_id":1319,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"Cristina","free_last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Nic\u00e9phore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Nic\u00e9phore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"Les qualit\u00e9s que certains philologues ou historiens de la philosophie assignent commun\u00e9ment de nos jours au commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote sont en effet reconnues de longue date. Par la clart\u00e9 des expos\u00e9s et la pertinence de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se, ce commentaire a joui d\u2019une longue post\u00e9rit\u00e9 chez les \u00e9rudits et philosophes byzantins. En t\u00e9moigne d\u2019embl\u00e9e l\u2019abondance des manuscrits du commentaire produits \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque byzantine : presque une quarantaine d\u2019entre eux sont conserv\u00e9s aujourd\u2019hui, soit le quadruple par rapport au nombre des manuscrits contenant le commentaire sur le m\u00eame ouvrage de son contemporain Jean Philopon. L\u2019utilisation de ce commentaire \u00e0 Byzance a \u00e9t\u00e9 presque constante, de Michel Psellos jusqu\u2019\u00e0 Pl\u00e9thon et Georges Scholarios, mais la partie de l\u2019Epitom\u00e9 isagogique (\u0395\u1f30\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae) de Nic\u00e9phore Blemmyde (1197-1272) qui se rapporte \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote en repr\u00e9sente le point culminant.\r\n\r\nAvant d\u2019aborder l\u2019\u00e9tude qui nous int\u00e9resse ici particuli\u00e8rement, quelques br\u00e8ves pr\u00e9cisions sur la nature de l\u2019ouvrage seront utiles. L\u2019Epitom\u00e9 isagogique \u2013 autrement dit Abr\u00e9g\u00e9 introductif \u2013 est un compendium scolaire divis\u00e9 en deux parties, une partie logique et une partie physique (appel\u00e9es commun\u00e9ment Epitom\u00e9 logique et Epitom\u00e9 physique), qui se propose de rassembler, dans 40 et 31 chapitres respectivement, l\u2019essentiel de la logique et de la physique (y compris l\u2019astronomie), la partie physique ayant \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9e dans sa forme finale vers l\u2019an 1260.\r\n\r\nL\u2019Epitom\u00e9 de Blemmyde n\u2019appartient \u00e9videmment pas au genre du commentaire stricto sensu. Elle est construite non pas sur des textes faisant autorit\u00e9 mais plut\u00f4t sur des th\u00e8mes philosophiques, qui sont annonc\u00e9s par le titre de chacun de ses chapitres. Ceci dit, l\u2019ouvrage ne porte pas les marques distinctives de l\u2019\u00e9rudition philologique tardo-antique : il y manque les sp\u00e9culations \u00e9tendues d\u00e9clench\u00e9es par ce qui est dit ou n\u2019est pas dit dans le texte qui fait autorit\u00e9, la mention des auteurs ant\u00e9rieurs, les citations pr\u00e9cises. On a ici affaire non pas \u00e0 un commentateur, mais plut\u00f4t \u00e0 un compilateur soucieux de rassembler les sujets philosophiques les plus pertinents et n\u00e9cessaires (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1, comme il le dit lui-m\u00eame dans son autobiographie).\r\n\r\nLes mat\u00e9riaux \u00e0 partir desquels les 31 chapitres de l\u2019Epitom\u00e9 physique sont mis en place sont emprunt\u00e9s surtout aux commentaires tardo-antiques : les commentaires de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique et au trait\u00e9 Du ciel, le commentaire de Jean Philopon au trait\u00e9 De la g\u00e9n\u00e9ration et de la corruption et celui d\u2019Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise aux M\u00e9t\u00e9orologiques. C\u2019est pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment le rapport de l\u2019Epitom\u00e9 physique avec le commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique \u2013 la source majeure pour les dix premiers chapitres \u2013 qui va nous occuper dans la suite. Nous t\u00e2cherons d\u2019aborder ce rapport dans une double perspective : faire appara\u00eetre, d\u2019une part, les emprunts philosophiques principaux et exclusifs de Blemmyde \u00e0 Simplicius et \u00e9valuer, d\u2019autre part \u2013 en consid\u00e9ration du fait que Blemmyde reproduit assez fid\u00e8lement des passages entiers de son mod\u00e8le \u2013 le r\u00f4le de l\u2019Epitom\u00e9 comme source indirecte de la tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius. [introduction p. 243-244]\r\n","btype":2,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wkrCGs8qhVRUK0j","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1319,"section_of":37,"pages":"243-256","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":37,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network \"Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture\", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D\u2019Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endre\u00df, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"D_Ancona_Costa2007","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2007","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2007","abstract":"The transmission of Greek learning to the Arabic-speaking world paved the way to the rise of Arabic philosophy. This volume offers a deep and multifarious survey of transmission of Greek philosophy through the schools of late Antiquity to the Syriac-speaking and Arabic-speaking worlds [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Adnom07DPUlmcQv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":37,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"107","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2007]}
Title | Alexandre d’Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l’univers |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2017 |
Published in | Alexandre d'Aphrodise et la métaphysique aristotéliecienne |
Pages | 217-235 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Balansard, Anne , Jaulin, Annick |
Translator(s) |
Les commentaires aristotéliciens de Simplicius, du moins ceux sur le traité Du ciel et sur la Physique, seraient sensiblement différents si l’exégète néoplatonicien n’avait pas eu accès aux commentaires d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise. Simplicius appelle Alexandre « l’étudiant le plus attentif d’Aristote » et ses abondantes références aux explications de l’exégète péripatéticien montrent de manière éloquente que les commentaires de ce dernier étaient pour lui des outils indispensables : ils lui ont permis d’expliquer plusieurs difficultés du texte d’Aristote, exception faite des cas où Aristote critique (ou semble critiquer, comme dirait Simplicius lui-même) Platon. Dans l’un de ces cas, la position de Simplicius envers Alexandre est clairement exprimée : Je crois qu’Alexandre d’Aphrodise, dans les autres cas, suit manifestement de belle manière, plus belle que celle des autres philosophes péripatéticiens, les discours d’Aristote. Pourtant, à propos de ce que dit Aristote contre Platon, il me semble qu’il ne respecte plus le but de l’antilogie d’Aristote, but qui vise l’apparence des discours de Platon, mais il objecte à Platon en quelque sorte avec perfidie, puisqu’il n’essaie pas uniquement de réfuter, lui aussi, le sens apparent de ce que dit Platon par souci envers les gens simples, comme Aristote l’a précisément fait, mais il calomnie les concepts du divin Platon et tente de tirer des conclusions qui ne suivent fréquemment même pas le sens apparent de son discours. Par l’emploi de l’adverbe κακοσχόλως («malicieusement», «avec perfidie»), Simplicius suggère à ses lecteurs qu’Alexandre connaissait en réalité le vrai objectif des critiques d’Aristote, qu’il a pourtant caché à ses propres lecteurs à cause de son appartenance à une secte philosophique, à savoir celle des Péripatéticiens. Les critiques d’Aristote envers Platon font preuve, selon Simplicius, du souci pédagogique du Stagirite ; elles sont mises en œuvre pour protéger les âmes philosophantes des contresens qu’elles risquent de faire en abordant des doctrines philosophiques qui sont difficilement compréhensibles. Les critiques apparentes concernent surtout la doctrine platonicienne de l’âme, comme dans le passage précédemment cité, où Aristote, selon l’interprétation que Simplicius propose contre Alexandre, se livre à une critique apparente du Timée 36e2-4 : « [L’âme], tissée à travers le ciel, du centre à l’extrémité […] commença une vie perpétuelle et raisonnable » (ἡ δὲ ἐκ μέσου πρὸς τὸν ἔσχατον οὐρανὸν πάσῃ διεκλακεῖσα […] ἤρξατο ἀθανάτου καὶ φρονίμου βίου). Si Aristote a ainsi critiqué Platon, c’est pour que les philosophes débutants ne pensent pas, à cause de l’usage en réalité métaphorique du participe διεκλακεῖσα («tissée»), que l’âme du monde, matériellement présente dans le corps céleste, le contraigne à se mouvoir en cercle, ce qui aurait deux conséquences non voulues : Que le mouvement circulaire ne serait pas le mouvement naturel du ciel, Que l’âme, exerçant une contrainte sur le ciel, ne pourrait pas vraiment mener une vie bienheureuse. La critique d’Aristote concerne aussi la thèse, intenable, selon laquelle le monde fut « engendré » (γενητός) dans le temps, thèse qu’Aristote attribue à Platon seulement à un premier niveau de lecture, en adaptant son discours au degré de connaissance des âmes philosophantes. Ces dernières n’arrivent pas encore à saisir le sens de γενητός comme renvoyant, dans le contexte du Timée, à ce qui n’est pas « auto-constituant » (αὐτοσύστατον), mais qui reçoit son existence d’une autre réalité, aussi sous un mode intemporel. Du point de vue de Simplicius, Aristote ne critique pas Platon, mais il critique en guise de préliminaire une fausse interprétation de Platon, afin que les étudiants ne soient pas amenés à croire, par leur lecture superficielle du Timée, à la création du monde. Les critiques que Simplicius adresse à Alexandre, dans son Commentaire au traité Du ciel comme dans son Commentaire à la Physique, sont toutes liées au fait que l’Aphrodisien interprète Aristote à la lettre. Cela vaut aussi pour le problème philosophique que nous nous proposons d’examiner ici, à savoir celui de savoir si l’univers a une cause efficiente ou non. [introduction p. 217-219] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/z0tM2tB9CIsYiik |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1324","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1324,"authors_free":[{"id":1958,"entry_id":1324,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2379,"entry_id":1324,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":2384,"entry_id":1324,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"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":"Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l\u2019univers","main_title":{"title":"Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l\u2019univers"},"abstract":"Les commentaires aristot\u00e9liciens de Simplicius, du moins ceux sur le trait\u00e9 Du ciel et sur la Physique, seraient sensiblement diff\u00e9rents si l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8te n\u00e9oplatonicien n\u2019avait pas eu acc\u00e8s aux commentaires d\u2019Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise. Simplicius appelle Alexandre \u00ab l\u2019\u00e9tudiant le plus attentif d\u2019Aristote \u00bb et ses abondantes r\u00e9f\u00e9rences aux explications de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8te p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticien montrent de mani\u00e8re \u00e9loquente que les commentaires de ce dernier \u00e9taient pour lui des outils indispensables : ils lui ont permis d\u2019expliquer plusieurs difficult\u00e9s du texte d\u2019Aristote, exception faite des cas o\u00f9 Aristote critique (ou semble critiquer, comme dirait Simplicius lui-m\u00eame) Platon. Dans l\u2019un de ces cas, la position de Simplicius envers Alexandre est clairement exprim\u00e9e :\r\n\r\n Je crois qu\u2019Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, dans les autres cas, suit manifestement de belle mani\u00e8re, plus belle que celle des autres philosophes p\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens, les discours d\u2019Aristote. Pourtant, \u00e0 propos de ce que dit Aristote contre Platon, il me semble qu\u2019il ne respecte plus le but de l\u2019antilogie d\u2019Aristote, but qui vise l\u2019apparence des discours de Platon, mais il objecte \u00e0 Platon en quelque sorte avec perfidie, puisqu\u2019il n\u2019essaie pas uniquement de r\u00e9futer, lui aussi, le sens apparent de ce que dit Platon par souci envers les gens simples, comme Aristote l\u2019a pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment fait, mais il calomnie les concepts du divin Platon et tente de tirer des conclusions qui ne suivent fr\u00e9quemment m\u00eame pas le sens apparent de son discours.\r\n\r\nPar l\u2019emploi de l\u2019adverbe \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c7\u03cc\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2 (\u00abmalicieusement\u00bb, \u00abavec perfidie\u00bb), Simplicius sugg\u00e8re \u00e0 ses lecteurs qu\u2019Alexandre connaissait en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 le vrai objectif des critiques d\u2019Aristote, qu\u2019il a pourtant cach\u00e9 \u00e0 ses propres lecteurs \u00e0 cause de son appartenance \u00e0 une secte philosophique, \u00e0 savoir celle des P\u00e9ripat\u00e9ticiens. Les critiques d\u2019Aristote envers Platon font preuve, selon Simplicius, du souci p\u00e9dagogique du Stagirite ; elles sont mises en \u0153uvre pour prot\u00e9ger les \u00e2mes philosophantes des contresens qu\u2019elles risquent de faire en abordant des doctrines philosophiques qui sont difficilement compr\u00e9hensibles.\r\n\r\nLes critiques apparentes concernent surtout la doctrine platonicienne de l\u2019\u00e2me, comme dans le passage pr\u00e9c\u00e9demment cit\u00e9, o\u00f9 Aristote, selon l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation que Simplicius propose contre Alexandre, se livre \u00e0 une critique apparente du Tim\u00e9e 36e2-4 :\r\n\r\n \u00ab [L\u2019\u00e2me], tiss\u00e9e \u00e0 travers le ciel, du centre \u00e0 l\u2019extr\u00e9mit\u00e9 [\u2026] commen\u00e7a une vie perp\u00e9tuelle et raisonnable \u00bb (\u1f21 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03ba \u03bc\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f14\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03c3\u1fc3 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 [\u2026] \u1f24\u03c1\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u1f00\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03af\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03af\u03bf\u03c5).\r\n\r\nSi Aristote a ainsi critiqu\u00e9 Platon, c\u2019est pour que les philosophes d\u00e9butants ne pensent pas, \u00e0 cause de l\u2019usage en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 m\u00e9taphorique du participe \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b1 (\u00abtiss\u00e9e\u00bb), que l\u2019\u00e2me du monde, mat\u00e9riellement pr\u00e9sente dans le corps c\u00e9leste, le contraigne \u00e0 se mouvoir en cercle, ce qui aurait deux cons\u00e9quences non voulues :\r\n\r\n Que le mouvement circulaire ne serait pas le mouvement naturel du ciel,\r\n Que l\u2019\u00e2me, exer\u00e7ant une contrainte sur le ciel, ne pourrait pas vraiment mener une vie bienheureuse.\r\n\r\nLa critique d\u2019Aristote concerne aussi la th\u00e8se, intenable, selon laquelle le monde fut \u00ab engendr\u00e9 \u00bb (\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2) dans le temps, th\u00e8se qu\u2019Aristote attribue \u00e0 Platon seulement \u00e0 un premier niveau de lecture, en adaptant son discours au degr\u00e9 de connaissance des \u00e2mes philosophantes. Ces derni\u00e8res n\u2019arrivent pas encore \u00e0 saisir le sens de \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 comme renvoyant, dans le contexte du Tim\u00e9e, \u00e0 ce qui n\u2019est pas \u00ab auto-constituant \u00bb (\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03cd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd), mais qui re\u00e7oit son existence d\u2019une autre r\u00e9alit\u00e9, aussi sous un mode intemporel.\r\n\r\nDu point de vue de Simplicius, Aristote ne critique pas Platon, mais il critique en guise de pr\u00e9liminaire une fausse interpr\u00e9tation de Platon, afin que les \u00e9tudiants ne soient pas amen\u00e9s \u00e0 croire, par leur lecture superficielle du Tim\u00e9e, \u00e0 la cr\u00e9ation du monde.\r\n\r\nLes critiques que Simplicius adresse \u00e0 Alexandre, dans son Commentaire au trait\u00e9 Du ciel comme dans son Commentaire \u00e0 la Physique, sont toutes li\u00e9es au fait que l\u2019Aphrodisien interpr\u00e8te Aristote \u00e0 la lettre. Cela vaut aussi pour le probl\u00e8me philosophique que nous nous proposons d\u2019examiner ici, \u00e0 savoir celui de savoir si l\u2019univers a une cause efficiente ou non.\r\n[introduction p. 217-219]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/z0tM2tB9CIsYiik","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","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":1324,"section_of":273,"pages":"217-235","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":["Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise, Simplicius, et la cause efficiente de l\u2019univers"]}
Title | Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia |
Type | Edited Book |
Language | English |
Date | 2019 |
Publication Place | Berlin – New York |
Publisher | De Gruyter |
Series | Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina. Quellen und Studien |
Volume | 7 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | |
Editor(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis , Ierodiakonou, Katerina |
Translator(s) |
This volume includes twelve studies by international specialists on Aristotle and his commentators. Among the topics treated are Aristotle's political philosophy and metaphysics, the ancient and Byzantine commentators' scholia on Aristotle's logic, philosophy of language and psychology as well as studies of broader scope on developmentalism in ancient philosophy and the importance of studying Late Antiquity. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/JDcdeQjoSV6hLxE |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1513","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1513,"authors_free":[{"id":2626,"entry_id":1513,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2627,"entry_id":1513,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":560,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","free_first_name":"Katerina","free_last_name":"Ierodiakonou","norm_person":{"id":560,"first_name":"Katerina","last_name":"Ierodiakonou","full_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1135990581","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia","main_title":{"title":"Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia"},"abstract":"This volume includes twelve studies by international specialists on Aristotle and his commentators. Among the topics treated are Aristotle's political philosophy and metaphysics, the ancient and Byzantine commentators' scholia on Aristotle's logic, philosophy of language and psychology as well as studies of broader scope on developmentalism in ancient philosophy and the importance of studying Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","btype":4,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/JDcdeQjoSV6hLxE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":560,"full_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1513,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter ","series":"Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina. Quellen und Studien","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia"]}
Title | Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2015 |
Journal | Revue d’histoire des textes, nouvelle série |
Volume | 10 |
Pages | 1-23 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
One of the less felicitous terms in textual criticism, despite its being amply used in modern scholarship, is the term « contamination » (Kontamination), which Paul Maas first coined in his famous Textkritik. By modern-day standards the term is supposed to account, roughly, for two phenomena : (1) the phenomenon of having variant readings in margine or inter lineas of a text, which is an obvious sign that, next to the principal model, at least one other manuscript has been at some point involved in the copying of the text ; (2) the more complicated phenomenon of detecting in the body of the text readings that are not expected to be found there. What we detect in (2) is in principle the result of what has happened in (1). Any scholar acquainted with Byzantine manuscripts produced from the ninth century down to the Fall of Constantinople should know that cases like those described above were frequent in Byzantium’s Buchwesen, provided that an adequately circulating text was concerned. As Byzantine scribes and scholars mostly worked and studied in significant libraries that owned several copies of the same text, the idea of comparing them in order to verify dubious readings and to produce a more satisfying text would naturally occur to their mind. Scribes and scholars in Byzantium were well aware that material damages and copyist errors could happen. And as we nowadays do, they tried to counter such textual problems by collating different manuscripts – not by contaminating them. If we leave aside copies made purely for commercial purposes, we can reasonably say that collation of at least two manuscripts before producing a new copy of a text was something of a rule in Byzantium. I shall henceforth call this rule « the principle of collation » ; it can be formulated like this : « Unless otherwise proved, each Byzantine copy of an adequately circulating text is the product of collation of at least two different manuscripts. » [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/HitzMXpWqjAaGGB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1417","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1417,"authors_free":[{"id":2218,"entry_id":1417,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis ","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq","main_title":{"title":"Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq"},"abstract":"One of the less felicitous terms in textual criticism, despite its being amply used in modern scholarship, is the term \u00ab contamination \u00bb (Kontamination), which Paul Maas first coined in his famous Textkritik. By modern-day standards the term is supposed to account, roughly, for two phenomena : (1) the phenomenon of having variant readings in margine or inter lineas of a text, which is an obvious sign that, next to the principal model, at least one other manuscript has been at some point involved in the copying of the text ; (2) the more complicated phenomenon of detecting in the body of the text readings that are not expected to be found there. What we detect in (2) is in principle the result of what has happened in (1). Any scholar acquainted with Byzantine manuscripts produced from the ninth century down to the Fall of Constantinople should know that cases like those described above were frequent in Byzantium\u2019s Buchwesen, provided that an adequately circulating text was concerned. As Byzantine scribes and scholars mostly worked and studied in significant libraries that owned several copies of the same text, the idea of comparing them in order to verify dubious readings and to produce a more satisfying text would naturally occur to their mind. Scribes and scholars in Byzantium were well aware that material damages and copyist errors could happen. And as we nowadays do, they tried to counter such textual problems by collating different manuscripts \u2013 not by contaminating them. If we leave aside copies made purely for commercial purposes, we can reasonably say that collation of at least two manuscripts before producing a new copy of a text was something of a rule in Byzantium. I shall henceforth call this rule \u00ab the principle of collation \u00bb ; it can be formulated like this : \u00ab Unless otherwise proved, each Byzantine copy of an adequately circulating text is the product of \r\ncollation of at least two different manuscripts. \u00bb [introduction]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/HitzMXpWqjAaGGB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1417,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue d\u2019histoire des textes, nouvelle s\u00e9rie","volume":"10","issue":"","pages":"1-23"}},"sort":["Collation but not contamination: On some textual problems of Aristotle\u2019s Metaphysics Kappa 1065a 25sqq"]}
Title | Der Begriff der Physis im späten Neuplatonismus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | German |
Date | 2019 |
Published in | Platon und die Physis |
Pages | 241-253 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Koch, Dietmar , Männlein-Robert, Irmgard , Weidtmann |
Translator(s) |
In dem Text wird die Bedeutung des Konzepts der Physis in der neuplatonischen Philosophie untersucht. Die neuplatonische Theorie der drei Hypostasen - das Eine oder Gute, der Nous oder die Vernunft und die Seele - wird erklärt, von denen alle anderen Realitäten abgeleitet werden. Die Natur wird als eine Art von Seele identifiziert, aber im Gegensatz zur vegetativen Seele ist sie eine lebensähnliche Kraft, die für die Schöpfung der Form und nicht des Lebens verantwortlich ist. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/2ke8ehUye0u5kBm |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1329","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1329,"authors_free":[{"id":1962,"entry_id":1329,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2381,"entry_id":1329,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":131,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Koch, Dietmar","free_first_name":"Dietmar","free_last_name":"Koch","norm_person":{"id":131,"first_name":"Dietmar","last_name":"Koch","full_name":"Koch, Dietmar","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/102787925X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2385,"entry_id":1329,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":454,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert, Irmgard","free_first_name":"Irmgard","free_last_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert","norm_person":{"id":454,"first_name":"Irmgard","last_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert","full_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert, Irmgard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122904796","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2386,"entry_id":1329,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":455,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Weidtmann","free_first_name":"Niels","free_last_name":"Weidtmann ","norm_person":{"id":455,"first_name":"Niels","last_name":"Weidtmann","full_name":"Weidtmann, Niels","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/121934438","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Der Begriff der Physis im sp\u00e4ten Neuplatonismus","main_title":{"title":"Der Begriff der Physis im sp\u00e4ten Neuplatonismus"},"abstract":"In dem Text wird die Bedeutung des Konzepts der Physis in der neuplatonischen Philosophie untersucht. Die neuplatonische Theorie der drei Hypostasen - das Eine oder Gute, der Nous oder die Vernunft und die Seele - wird erkl\u00e4rt, von denen alle anderen Realit\u00e4ten abgeleitet werden. Die Natur wird als eine Art von Seele identifiziert, aber im Gegensatz zur vegetativen Seele ist sie eine lebens\u00e4hnliche Kraft, die f\u00fcr die Sch\u00f6pfung der Form und nicht des Lebens verantwortlich ist. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2ke8ehUye0u5kBm","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":131,"full_name":"Koch, Dietmar","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":454,"full_name":"M\u00e4nnlein-Robert, Irmgard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":455,"full_name":"Weidtmann, Niels","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1329,"section_of":1330,"pages":"241-253","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1330,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"de","title":"Platon und die Physis","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Koch2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2019","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"Der vorliegende Band umfasst Beitr\u00e4ge zu einem zentralen Thema bei Platon: 'Physis' kann bei Platon im naturwissenschaftlichen Sinne als physische, biologische, materielle Natur oder im \u00fcbertragenen Sinne als eigenes Wesen, etwa hinsichtlich Seele, Kosmos oder G\u00f6ttlichem, verstanden werden. So werden in diesem Band medizinische, biologische und kosmologische Ans\u00e4tze ebenso wie ontologische, epistemologische und p\u00e4dagogische Themen zu Platons 'Physis'-Konzept in den Blick genommen. Die zeitgen\u00f6ssische Nomos-Physis-Diskussion Platons mit den Sophisten sowie seine sprach- und kulturphilosophischen \u00dcberlegungen spielen hier eine wichtige Rolle. Die anspruchsvolle literarische Gestaltung der Platonischen Dialoge ist f\u00fcr die genannten Fragestellungen h\u00f6chst relevant, ebenso die Auseinandersetzung sp\u00e4terer platonischer Philosophen mit Platons 'Physis'-Konzept. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AMVDL9mBzjUlvIg","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1330,"pubplace":"T\u00fcbingen","publisher":"Mohr Siebeck","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Der Begriff der Physis im sp\u00e4ten Neuplatonismus"]}
Title | John Philoponus’ Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle’s De Anima, Wrongly Attributed to Stephanus |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 393-412 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Philoponus’ denial of the existence of unformed matter in his Contra Proclum, composed in 529, allows us to date the commentary on DA 3 before the Contra Proclum, since the existence of unformed matter is accepted in the former work. To conclude: we should discard Stephanus as a possible author of in DA 3, which is an attribution depending on a Byzantine addition to a manuscript with no title, and reassign this commentary to Philoponus on the grounds of self-reference, exegetical attitude, and general style. This commentary, possibly through the initiative of a pupil who recorded it, replaced Ammonius’ commentary on Book 3, as previously published by Philoponus, thus allowing two different editions to reach Byzantium: Philoponus’ edition of Ammonius’ lectures and the composite edition in which Ammonius’ lectures on Book 3 were replaced by those of Philoponus. The second edition was the one copied by D1, whereas D3 had access only to the first edition. [conclusion p. 412] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QH2oMIgPb9H8EAI |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1418","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1418,"authors_free":[{"id":2219,"entry_id":1418,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2221,"entry_id":1418,"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":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","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":"John Philoponus\u2019 Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima, Wrongly Attributed to Stephanus","main_title":{"title":"John Philoponus\u2019 Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima, Wrongly Attributed to Stephanus"},"abstract":"Philoponus\u2019 denial of the existence of unformed matter in his Contra Proclum, composed in 529, allows us to date the commentary on DA 3 before the Contra Proclum, since the existence of unformed matter is accepted in the former work.\r\n\r\nTo conclude: we should discard Stephanus as a possible author of in DA 3, which is an attribution depending on a Byzantine addition to a manuscript with no title, and reassign this commentary to Philoponus on the grounds of self-reference, exegetical attitude, and general style. This commentary, possibly through the initiative of a pupil who recorded it, replaced Ammonius\u2019 commentary on Book 3, as previously published by Philoponus, thus allowing two different editions to reach Byzantium: Philoponus\u2019 edition of Ammonius\u2019 lectures and the composite edition in which Ammonius\u2019 lectures on Book 3 were replaced by those of Philoponus. The second edition was the one copied by D1, whereas D3 had access only to the first edition. [conclusion p. 412]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QH2oMIgPb9H8EAI","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1418,"section_of":1419,"pages":"393-412","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":"","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\/thdAvlIvWl4EdKB","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":["John Philoponus\u2019 Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle\u2019s De Anima, Wrongly Attributed to Stephanus"]}
Title | La critique aristotélicienne des Idées en Physique II 2 et l’interprétation de Simplicius |
Type | Article |
Language | French |
Date | 2017 |
Journal | Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques |
Volume | 101 |
Pages | 569-584 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
In Physics II 2, 193b35–194a1, Aristotle criticizes in passing the partisans of the Ideas, comparing them to the mathematicians. The present article first attempts to specify the identity of the Academicians Aristotle has in view and to explain how their method resembles the mathematical one. In a second step, the article sheds light on Simplicius' manner of deflecting the Aristotelian critique, showing that, despite appearances, the Stagirite acknowledges that the forms of natural realities, after the fashion of mathematical realities, can be thought of separately, that is to say, without matter. The Neoplatonist's reflection casts new light on the notion of methexis, basically identical to that of phusikos logos or "form in itself," which is like intelligible Form. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CX8My3vkHJrymmk |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1509","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1509,"authors_free":[{"id":2622,"entry_id":1509,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La critique aristot\u00e9licienne des Id\u00e9es en Physique II 2 et l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"La critique aristot\u00e9licienne des Id\u00e9es en Physique II 2 et l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Simplicius"},"abstract":"In Physics II 2, 193b35\u2013194a1, Aristotle criticizes in passing the partisans of the Ideas, comparing them to the mathematicians. The present article first attempts to specify the identity of the Academicians Aristotle has in view and to explain how their method resembles the mathematical one.\r\n\r\nIn a second step, the article sheds light on Simplicius' manner of deflecting the Aristotelian critique, showing that, despite appearances, the Stagirite acknowledges that the forms of natural realities, after the fashion of mathematical realities, can be thought of separately, that is to say, without matter.\r\n\r\nThe Neoplatonist's reflection casts new light on the notion of methexis, basically identical to that of phusikos logos or \"form in itself,\" which is like intelligible Form. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CX8My3vkHJrymmk","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1509,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Th\u00e9ologiques","volume":"101","issue":"","pages":"569-584"}},"sort":["La critique aristot\u00e9licienne des Id\u00e9es en Physique II 2 et l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation de Simplicius"]}
Title | La réception de la théologie d’Aristote chez Michel d’Éphèse et quelques auteurs néoplatoniciens |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2017 |
Published in | Réceptions de la théologie aristotélicienne: D'Aristote à Michel d'Ephèse |
Pages | 239-256 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Baghdassarian, Fabienne |
Translator(s) |
This text discusses the reception of Aristotelian theology by Michel of Ephesus and some Neoplatonic authors. Michel is known for his commentaries on Aristotle's works, particularly the Ethics, which he wrote at the request of Princess Anne Comnène. Michel's personal tone and spirituality in his commentaries, particularly his invocation to Christ at the end of his commentary on the Ethics, may have been influenced by his teacher, Jean Italos, who was condemned for heresy in 1082 for accepting the Platonic Model of Ideas as real. Michel's praise of his teacher revolves around the Aristotelian concept of God as pure intellection, intelligible by rational souls, and the possibility for humans to participate in this Intellection. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/gn5g7p3dYNiGdlE |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1325","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1325,"authors_free":[{"id":1959,"entry_id":1325,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2380,"entry_id":1325,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":130,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Baghdassarian, Fabienne","free_first_name":"Fabienne","free_last_name":"Baghdassarian","norm_person":{"id":130,"first_name":"Fabienne","last_name":"Baghdassarian","full_name":"Baghdassarian, Fabienne","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1116095602","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La r\u00e9ception de la th\u00e9ologie d\u2019Aristote chez Michel d\u2019\u00c9ph\u00e8se et quelques auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens","main_title":{"title":"La r\u00e9ception de la th\u00e9ologie d\u2019Aristote chez Michel d\u2019\u00c9ph\u00e8se et quelques auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens"},"abstract":"This text discusses the reception of Aristotelian theology by Michel of Ephesus and some Neoplatonic authors. Michel is known for his commentaries on Aristotle's works, particularly the Ethics, which he wrote at the request of Princess Anne Comn\u00e8ne. Michel's personal tone and spirituality in his commentaries, particularly his invocation to Christ at the end of his commentary on the Ethics, may have been influenced by his teacher, Jean Italos, who was condemned for heresy in 1082 for accepting the Platonic Model of Ideas as real. Michel's praise of his teacher revolves around the Aristotelian concept of God as pure intellection, intelligible by rational souls, and the possibility for humans to participate in this Intellection. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":2,"date":"2017","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/gn5g7p3dYNiGdlE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":130,"full_name":"Baghdassarian, Fabienne","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1325,"section_of":1327,"pages":"239-256","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1327,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"no language selected","title":"R\u00e9ceptions de la th\u00e9ologie aristot\u00e9licienne: D'Aristote \u00e0 Michel d'Eph\u00e8se","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2017","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"La conception aristot\u00e9licienne des principes divins est parcourue de tensions \u00e9pist\u00e9mologiques, arch\u00e9ologiques et proprement th\u00e9ologiques, qui constituent \u00e0 la fois un d\u00e9fi pour Aristote lui-m\u00eame et un ensemble de probl\u00e8mes qu'il l\u00e8gue \u00e0 la tradition, qu'elle se revendique de lui, ou se fasse critique \u00e0 son \u00e9gard. Restitu\u00e9e au mouvement de la tradition, aux vicissitudes de ses relectures, la th\u00e9ologie aristot\u00e9licienne voit s'actualiser les potentialit\u00e9s qu'elle portait en son sein, et qu'Aristote lui-m\u00eame, d\u00e9j\u00e0, commen\u00e7ait d'explorer. Ce volume, sans pr\u00e9tendre \u00e0 l'exhaustivit\u00e9, souhaite, par la diversit\u00e9 de ses contributions, donner \u00e0 lire quelques-unes de ces actualisations, qu'elles soient ex\u00e9g\u00e9tiques ou pol\u00e9miques, et tracer quelques lin\u00e9aments de leurs effets historiques. [Editor's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/M6C8JJNritLlEmQ","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1327,"pubplace":"Leuven","publisher":"Peeters Publishers","series":"Aristote. Traductions Et Etudes","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["La r\u00e9ception de la th\u00e9ologie d\u2019Aristote chez Michel d\u2019\u00c9ph\u00e8se et quelques auteurs n\u00e9oplatoniciens"]}
Title | Les Commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon à La Physique d’Aristote: Tradition et Innovation |
Type | Monograph |
Language | French |
Date | 2008 |
Publication Place | Berlin – New York |
Publisher | de Gruyter |
Series | Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina |
Volume | 3 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
In der griechischen Spätantike definiert sich die Philosophie vor allem über die Auslegung autoritativer Texte wie der Dialoge Platons oder der Abhandlungen des Aristoteles. In der vorliegenden Studie werden die letzten spätantiken Kommentare des Heiden Simplikios und des Christen Philoponos (beide 6. Jh. n.Chr.) zu Aristoteles’ Physik untersucht. Golitsis zeigt auf, wie unterschiedlich die beiden Zeitgenossen die philosophische Tradition bewerten undwelchunterschiedlichen Wegzur Wahrheitsfindung sie daraus ableiten. Der Autor wurde für dieses Buch mit dem "Prix Zographos" der "Association pour l'Encouragement des Études Grecques" ausgezeichnet. [author’s abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/p4M88GaW4sKfDxE |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"26","_score":null,"_source":{"id":26,"authors_free":[{"id":29,"entry_id":26,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Les Commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon \u00e0 La Physique d\u2019Aristote: Tradition et Innovation","main_title":{"title":"Les Commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon \u00e0 La Physique d\u2019Aristote: Tradition et Innovation"},"abstract":"In der griechischen Sp\u00e4tantike definiert sich die Philosophie vor allem \u00fcber die Auslegung autoritativer Texte wie der Dialoge Platons oder der Abhandlungen des Aristoteles. In der vorliegenden Studie werden die letzten sp\u00e4tantiken Kommentare des Heiden Simplikios und des Christen Philoponos (beide 6. Jh. n.Chr.) zu Aristoteles\u2019 Physik untersucht. Golitsis zeigt auf, wie unterschiedlich die beiden Zeitgenossen die philosophische Tradition bewerten undwelchunterschiedlichen Wegzur Wahrheitsfindung sie daraus ableiten. Der Autor wurde f\u00fcr dieses Buch mit dem \"Prix Zographos\" der \"Association pour l'Encouragement des \u00c9tudes Grecques\" ausgezeichnet. [author\u2019s abstract]","btype":1,"date":"2008","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/p4M88GaW4sKfDxE","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":{"id":26,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"de Gruyter","series":"Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Les Commentaires de Simplicius et de Jean Philopon \u00e0 La Physique d\u2019Aristote: Tradition et Innovation"]}
Title | Nicéphore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote |
Type | Book Section |
Language | French |
Date | 2007 |
Published in | The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network "Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D’Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endreß, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche |
Pages | 243-256 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | D'Ancona Costa, Cristina |
Translator(s) |
Les qualités que certains philologues ou historiens de la philosophie assignent communément de nos jours au commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique d’Aristote sont en effet reconnues de longue date. Par la clarté des exposés et la pertinence de l’exégèse, ce commentaire a joui d’une longue postérité chez les érudits et philosophes byzantins. En témoigne d’emblée l’abondance des manuscrits du commentaire produits à l’époque byzantine : presque une quarantaine d’entre eux sont conservés aujourd’hui, soit le quadruple par rapport au nombre des manuscrits contenant le commentaire sur le même ouvrage de son contemporain Jean Philopon. L’utilisation de ce commentaire à Byzance a été presque constante, de Michel Psellos jusqu’à Pléthon et Georges Scholarios, mais la partie de l’Epitomé isagogique (Εἰσαγωγική ἐπιτομή) de Nicéphore Blemmyde (1197-1272) qui se rapporte à la Physique d’Aristote en représente le point culminant. Avant d’aborder l’étude qui nous intéresse ici particulièrement, quelques brèves précisions sur la nature de l’ouvrage seront utiles. L’Epitomé isagogique – autrement dit Abrégé introductif – est un compendium scolaire divisé en deux parties, une partie logique et une partie physique (appelées communément Epitomé logique et Epitomé physique), qui se propose de rassembler, dans 40 et 31 chapitres respectivement, l’essentiel de la logique et de la physique (y compris l’astronomie), la partie physique ayant été publiée dans sa forme finale vers l’an 1260. L’Epitomé de Blemmyde n’appartient évidemment pas au genre du commentaire stricto sensu. Elle est construite non pas sur des textes faisant autorité mais plutôt sur des thèmes philosophiques, qui sont annoncés par le titre de chacun de ses chapitres. Ceci dit, l’ouvrage ne porte pas les marques distinctives de l’érudition philologique tardo-antique : il y manque les spéculations étendues déclenchées par ce qui est dit ou n’est pas dit dans le texte qui fait autorité, la mention des auteurs antérieurs, les citations précises. On a ici affaire non pas à un commentateur, mais plutôt à un compilateur soucieux de rassembler les sujets philosophiques les plus pertinents et nécessaires (τὰ καρικώτερα καὶ τὰ ἀναγκαιότερα, comme il le dit lui-même dans son autobiographie). Les matériaux à partir desquels les 31 chapitres de l’Epitomé physique sont mis en place sont empruntés surtout aux commentaires tardo-antiques : les commentaires de Simplicius à la Physique et au traité Du ciel, le commentaire de Jean Philopon au traité De la génération et de la corruption et celui d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise aux Météorologiques. C’est précisément le rapport de l’Epitomé physique avec le commentaire de Simplicius à la Physique – la source majeure pour les dix premiers chapitres – qui va nous occuper dans la suite. Nous tâcherons d’aborder ce rapport dans une double perspective : faire apparaître, d’une part, les emprunts philosophiques principaux et exclusifs de Blemmyde à Simplicius et évaluer, d’autre part – en considération du fait que Blemmyde reproduit assez fidèlement des passages entiers de son modèle – le rôle de l’Epitomé comme source indirecte de la tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius. [introduction p. 243-244] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/wkrCGs8qhVRUK0j |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1319","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1319,"authors_free":[{"id":1953,"entry_id":1319,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2375,"entry_id":1319,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":60,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","free_first_name":"Cristina","free_last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","norm_person":{"id":60,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"D'Ancona Costa","full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/138912297","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Nic\u00e9phore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote","main_title":{"title":"Nic\u00e9phore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote"},"abstract":"Les qualit\u00e9s que certains philologues ou historiens de la philosophie assignent commun\u00e9ment de nos jours au commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote sont en effet reconnues de longue date. Par la clart\u00e9 des expos\u00e9s et la pertinence de l\u2019ex\u00e9g\u00e8se, ce commentaire a joui d\u2019une longue post\u00e9rit\u00e9 chez les \u00e9rudits et philosophes byzantins. En t\u00e9moigne d\u2019embl\u00e9e l\u2019abondance des manuscrits du commentaire produits \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9poque byzantine : presque une quarantaine d\u2019entre eux sont conserv\u00e9s aujourd\u2019hui, soit le quadruple par rapport au nombre des manuscrits contenant le commentaire sur le m\u00eame ouvrage de son contemporain Jean Philopon. L\u2019utilisation de ce commentaire \u00e0 Byzance a \u00e9t\u00e9 presque constante, de Michel Psellos jusqu\u2019\u00e0 Pl\u00e9thon et Georges Scholarios, mais la partie de l\u2019Epitom\u00e9 isagogique (\u0395\u1f30\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae) de Nic\u00e9phore Blemmyde (1197-1272) qui se rapporte \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote en repr\u00e9sente le point culminant.\r\n\r\nAvant d\u2019aborder l\u2019\u00e9tude qui nous int\u00e9resse ici particuli\u00e8rement, quelques br\u00e8ves pr\u00e9cisions sur la nature de l\u2019ouvrage seront utiles. L\u2019Epitom\u00e9 isagogique \u2013 autrement dit Abr\u00e9g\u00e9 introductif \u2013 est un compendium scolaire divis\u00e9 en deux parties, une partie logique et une partie physique (appel\u00e9es commun\u00e9ment Epitom\u00e9 logique et Epitom\u00e9 physique), qui se propose de rassembler, dans 40 et 31 chapitres respectivement, l\u2019essentiel de la logique et de la physique (y compris l\u2019astronomie), la partie physique ayant \u00e9t\u00e9 publi\u00e9e dans sa forme finale vers l\u2019an 1260.\r\n\r\nL\u2019Epitom\u00e9 de Blemmyde n\u2019appartient \u00e9videmment pas au genre du commentaire stricto sensu. Elle est construite non pas sur des textes faisant autorit\u00e9 mais plut\u00f4t sur des th\u00e8mes philosophiques, qui sont annonc\u00e9s par le titre de chacun de ses chapitres. Ceci dit, l\u2019ouvrage ne porte pas les marques distinctives de l\u2019\u00e9rudition philologique tardo-antique : il y manque les sp\u00e9culations \u00e9tendues d\u00e9clench\u00e9es par ce qui est dit ou n\u2019est pas dit dans le texte qui fait autorit\u00e9, la mention des auteurs ant\u00e9rieurs, les citations pr\u00e9cises. On a ici affaire non pas \u00e0 un commentateur, mais plut\u00f4t \u00e0 un compilateur soucieux de rassembler les sujets philosophiques les plus pertinents et n\u00e9cessaires (\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1, comme il le dit lui-m\u00eame dans son autobiographie).\r\n\r\nLes mat\u00e9riaux \u00e0 partir desquels les 31 chapitres de l\u2019Epitom\u00e9 physique sont mis en place sont emprunt\u00e9s surtout aux commentaires tardo-antiques : les commentaires de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique et au trait\u00e9 Du ciel, le commentaire de Jean Philopon au trait\u00e9 De la g\u00e9n\u00e9ration et de la corruption et celui d\u2019Alexandre d\u2019Aphrodise aux M\u00e9t\u00e9orologiques. C\u2019est pr\u00e9cis\u00e9ment le rapport de l\u2019Epitom\u00e9 physique avec le commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique \u2013 la source majeure pour les dix premiers chapitres \u2013 qui va nous occuper dans la suite. Nous t\u00e2cherons d\u2019aborder ce rapport dans une double perspective : faire appara\u00eetre, d\u2019une part, les emprunts philosophiques principaux et exclusifs de Blemmyde \u00e0 Simplicius et \u00e9valuer, d\u2019autre part \u2013 en consid\u00e9ration du fait que Blemmyde reproduit assez fid\u00e8lement des passages entiers de son mod\u00e8le \u2013 le r\u00f4le de l\u2019Epitom\u00e9 comme source indirecte de la tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius. [introduction p. 243-244]\r\n","btype":2,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/wkrCGs8qhVRUK0j","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":60,"full_name":"D'Ancona Costa, Cristina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1319,"section_of":37,"pages":"243-256","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":37,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"The Libraries of the Neoplatonists. Proceedings of the Meeting of the European Science Foundation Network \"Late Antiquity and Arabic Thought: Patterns in the Constitution of European Culture\", Strasbourg, March 12-14, 2004 under the Scientific Committee of the meeting, composed by Matthias Baltes, Michel Cacouros, Cristina D\u2019Ancona, Tiziano Dorandi, Gerhard Endre\u00df, Philippe Hoffmann, Henri Hugonnard Roche","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"D_Ancona_Costa2007","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2007","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2007","abstract":"The transmission of Greek learning to the Arabic-speaking world paved the way to the rise of Arabic philosophy. This volume offers a deep and multifarious survey of transmission of Greek philosophy through the schools of late Antiquity to the Syriac-speaking and Arabic-speaking worlds [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Adnom07DPUlmcQv","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":37,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"107","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Nic\u00e9phore Blemmyde lecteur du commentaire de Simplicius \u00e0 la Physique d\u2019Aristote"]}
Title | On Simplicius’ Life and Works: A Response to Hadot |
Type | Article |
Language | English |
Date | 2015 |
Journal | Aestimatio |
Volume | 12 |
Pages | 56-82 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
This text is a response to Ilsetraut Hadot's book, "Le néoplatonicien Simplicius à la lumière des recherches contem¬poraines. Un bilan critique," which provides a critical overview of scholarly research on the Neoplatonist Simplicius. The author critiques Hadot's approach, arguing that her use of the Neoplatonic curriculum and medieval testimonies is an unsafe guide for assessing Simplicius' life and works. The article concludes by thanking Hadot for her previous work on Simplicius and acknowledging the value of her contributions to the field. [introduction/conclusion] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iph5X72ry3ZiZ9P |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1322","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1322,"authors_free":[{"id":1956,"entry_id":1322,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"On Simplicius\u2019 Life and Works: A Response to Hadot","main_title":{"title":"On Simplicius\u2019 Life and Works: A Response to Hadot"},"abstract":"This text is a response to Ilsetraut Hadot's book, \"Le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius \u00e0 la lumi\u00e8re des recherches contem\u00acporaines. Un bilan critique,\" which provides a critical overview of scholarly research on the Neoplatonist Simplicius. The author critiques Hadot's approach, arguing that her use of the Neoplatonic curriculum and medieval testimonies is an unsafe guide for assessing Simplicius' life and works. The article concludes by thanking Hadot for her previous work on Simplicius and acknowledging the value of her contributions to the field. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"2015","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iph5X72ry3ZiZ9P","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1322,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Aestimatio","volume":"12","issue":"","pages":"56-82"}},"sort":["On Simplicius\u2019 Life and Works: A Response to Hadot"]}
Title | Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Brill’ Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity |
Pages | 419-438 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Falcon, Andrea |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius of Cilicia and John Philoponus of Alexandria share many common features but differ in one most important respect: their interpretation of Aristotle. They were contemporaries and both attended the seminars of Ammonius, son of Hermias, in Alexandria. Ammonius (died shortly before AD 517) was a Neoplatonist who focused his teaching more on Aristotle than on Plato, and it was presumably under his influence that both Simplicius and Philoponus commented on Aristotle and not on Plato. Throughout their commentaries, however, one is guided to radically opposing interpretations of Aristotle’s philosophy. Simplicius endeavored to establish Aristotle not only as an unshakable authority in philosophy of language and natural philosophy but also as a philosopher who fully shared with Plato knowledge of the divine truth (i.e., the truth about the first realities of the cosmos: the Soul, the Intelligence, and the One). Philoponus, on the other hand, rejected Aristotle as an authority, countered many of his arguments in his Aristotelian commentaries, and openly opposed Aristotle in his treatise On the Eternity of the World against Aristotle. One should abstain, however, from thinking in a simplistic manner of Simplicius as the “traditionalist” and of Philoponus as the “modernist.” Philoponus seems to have fully accepted the authority of Moses while commenting on Genesis, and the fully equal rank that Simplicius granted to Aristotle and Plato was a novelty within the Neoplatonic tradition. Both philosophers, we might say, served a religious purpose by using a philosophical method; they both had recourse to philosophical exegesis, the former in order to demolish Hellenic authorities and establish the truth of Christianity, mainly its doctrine of creationism, the latter in order to defend Hellenism as a unitary and perennial system of thought. [introduction p. 419-420] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/TO7oBHK7aGfz4Zy |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1323","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1323,"authors_free":[{"id":1957,"entry_id":1323,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2222,"entry_id":1323,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":95,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Falcon, Andrea","free_first_name":"Andrea","free_last_name":"Falcon","norm_person":{"id":95,"first_name":"Andrea","last_name":"Falcon","full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1138844241","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle"},"abstract":"Simplicius of Cilicia and John Philoponus of Alexandria share many common features but differ in one most important respect: their interpretation of Aristotle. They were contemporaries and both attended the seminars of Ammonius, son of Hermias, in Alexandria. Ammonius (died shortly before AD 517) was a Neoplatonist who focused his teaching more on Aristotle than on Plato, and it was presumably under his influence that both Simplicius and Philoponus commented on Aristotle and not on Plato. Throughout their commentaries, however, one is guided to radically opposing interpretations of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy.\r\n\r\nSimplicius endeavored to establish Aristotle not only as an unshakable authority in philosophy of language and natural philosophy but also as a philosopher who fully shared with Plato knowledge of the divine truth (i.e., the truth about the first realities of the cosmos: the Soul, the Intelligence, and the One). Philoponus, on the other hand, rejected Aristotle as an authority, countered many of his arguments in his Aristotelian commentaries, and openly opposed Aristotle in his treatise On the Eternity of the World against Aristotle. One should abstain, however, from thinking in a simplistic manner of Simplicius as the \u201ctraditionalist\u201d and of Philoponus as the \u201cmodernist.\u201d\r\n\r\nPhiloponus seems to have fully accepted the authority of Moses while commenting on Genesis, and the fully equal rank that Simplicius granted to Aristotle and Plato was a novelty within the Neoplatonic tradition. Both philosophers, we might say, served a religious purpose by using a philosophical method; they both had recourse to philosophical exegesis, the former in order to demolish Hellenic authorities and establish the truth of Christianity, mainly its doctrine of creationism, the latter in order to defend Hellenism as a unitary and perennial system of thought. [introduction p. 419-420]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TO7oBHK7aGfz4Zy","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":95,"full_name":"Falcon, Andrea","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1323,"section_of":304,"pages":"419-438","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":304,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Brill\u2019 Companion to the Reception of Aristotle in Antiquity","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Falcon2016","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2016","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2016","abstract":"Brill\u2019s Companion to the Reception of Aristotle provides a systematic yet accessible account of the reception of Aristotle\u2019s philosophy in Antiquity. To date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to explain this complex phenomenon. This volume fills this lacuna by offering broad coverage of the subject from Hellenistic times to the sixth century AD. It is laid out chronologically and the 23 articles are divided into three sections: I. The Hellenistic Reception of Aristotle; II. The Post-Hellenistic Engagement with Aristotle; III. Aristotle in Late Antiquity. Topics include Aristotle and the Stoa, Andronicus of Rhodes and the construction of the Aristotelian corpus, the return to Aristotle in the first century BC, and the role of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Porphyry in the transmission of Aristotle's philosophy to Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/TjdS065EwQq3iWS","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":304,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius and Philoponus on the Authority of Aristotle"]}
Title | Simplicius et le “lieu”. À propos d’une nouvelle édition du Corollarium de loco |
Type | Article |
Language | French |
Date | 2014 |
Journal | Revue des Études Grecques |
Volume | 127 |
Issue | 1 |
Pages | 119-175 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis , Hoffmann, Philippe |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
The digression labelled “Corollarium de loco” by Hermann Diels in his edition of Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, IX, Berlin 1882) is a key text in the debate - often referred to by specialists as magna quaestio - generated by an apparent lack of consistency between Aristotle’s definition of ‘place’ (topos) as “the first unmoved boundary of the surrounding body” (Phys. IV, 4, 212 a 20-21) and his assertion that the Heaven moves in a circle while not being ‘somewhere’, since it is not surrounded by any body that would be exterior to it. Following the steps of his master Damascius, and at the end of a long discussion initiated by Neoplatonists after Plotinus (principally by Iamblichus, Proclus and Syrianus), Simplicius replaces Aristotle’s definition with a new definition of place as a “gathering (or uniting) measure” (metron sunagôgon), which is one of the four “measures” (number, size, place, time) or gathering powers that protect the intelligible and sensible entities against the dangers of the dispersion related to the procession of reality. This doctrine places physics in a decidedly theological perspective since, in last analysis, these uniting powers derive from the One or Good per se. Our understanding of this crucial text for our knowledge of the Neoplatonic philosophy of Nature will be improved thanks to a new critical edition (with French translation and notes), to be published soon in the collection “Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca and Byzantina” (by Walter de Gruyter) under the auspices of the Academy of Sciences of Bcrlin-Brandenburg. The new edition is based not only on a fresh collation of the two manuscripts used by Diels (Marciani graeci 227 and 229) but also on a Moscow manuscript (Mosquensis Muz. 3649) unknown to the German scholar, since it belonged during the nineteenth century to a private Russian collection. [Author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/CopNdLIRs5QEoZb |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1321","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1321,"authors_free":[{"id":1955,"entry_id":1321,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2378,"entry_id":1321,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius et le \u201clieu\u201d. \u00c0 propos d\u2019une nouvelle \u00e9dition du Corollarium de loco","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius et le \u201clieu\u201d. \u00c0 propos d\u2019une nouvelle \u00e9dition du Corollarium de loco"},"abstract":"The digression labelled \u201cCorollarium de loco\u201d by Hermann Diels in his edition of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, IX, Berlin 1882) is a key text in the debate - often referred to by specialists as magna quaestio - generated by an apparent lack of consistency between Aristotle\u2019s definition of \u2018place\u2019 (topos) as \u201cthe first unmoved boundary \r\nof the surrounding body\u201d (Phys. IV, 4, 212 a 20-21) and his assertion that the Heaven moves in a circle while not being \u2018somewhere\u2019, since it is not surrounded by any body that would be exterior to it. Following the steps of his master Damascius, and at the end of a long discussion initiated by Neoplatonists after Plotinus (principally by Iamblichus, Proclus and Syrianus), Simplicius replaces Aristotle\u2019s definition with a new definition of place as a \u201cgathering (or uniting) measure\u201d (metron sunag\u00f4gon), which is one of the four \u201cmeasures\u201d (number, size, place, time) or gathering powers that protect the intelligible and sensible \r\nentities against the dangers of the dispersion related to the procession of reality. This doctrine places physics in a decidedly theological perspective since, in last analysis, these uniting powers derive from the One or Good per se. Our under\u00adstanding of this crucial text for our knowledge of the Neoplatonic philosophy of \r\nNature will be improved thanks to a new critical edition (with French translation and notes), to be published soon in the collection \u201cCommentaria in Aristotelem Graeca and Byzantina\u201d (by Walter de Gruyter) under the auspices of the Academy \r\nof Sciences of Bcrlin-Brandenburg. The new edition is based not only on a fresh collation of the two manuscripts used by Diels (Marciani graeci 227 and 229) but also on a Moscow manuscript (Mosquensis Muz. 3649) unknown to the Ger\u00adman scholar, since it belonged during the nineteenth century to a private Russian \r\ncollection. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CopNdLIRs5QEoZb","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1321,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des \u00c9tudes Grecques ","volume":"127","issue":"1","pages":"119-175"}},"sort":["Simplicius et le \u201clieu\u201d. \u00c0 propos d\u2019une nouvelle \u00e9dition du Corollarium de loco"]}
Title | Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2019 |
Published in | Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den spätanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier |
Pages | 69-99 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Strobel, Benedikt |
Translator(s) |
This study explores the idea of harmonizing philosophical discourse, which aims to reconcile philosophical texts that contain seemingly incompatible ideas. Contrary to the assumption in scholarly literature, this discourse was not widely accepted in the philosophical Schools of Late Antiquity. The author examines the reactions of Syrianus, the Head of the Platonic School at Athens, to Aristotle's criticisms of Plato's philosophy, and how Syrianus accepted parts of Aristotle's philosophy but rejected others. The article also discusses the absence of a philosophical curriculum at the time of Simplicius' Aristotelian Commentaries, which led to his concern about the innate unity of ancient Greek philosophy being broken apart. [introduction] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/QL5VZHREOe1cXap |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1320","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1320,"authors_free":[{"id":1954,"entry_id":1320,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2376,"entry_id":1320,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":326,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","free_first_name":"Benedikt","free_last_name":"Strobel","norm_person":{"id":326,"first_name":" Benedikt","last_name":"Strobel,","full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/173882056","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers"},"abstract":"This study explores the idea of harmonizing philosophical discourse, which aims to reconcile philosophical texts that contain seemingly incompatible ideas. Contrary to the assumption in scholarly literature, this discourse was not widely accepted in the philosophical Schools of Late Antiquity. The author examines the reactions of Syrianus, the Head of the Platonic School at Athens, to Aristotle's criticisms of Plato's philosophy, and how Syrianus accepted parts of Aristotle's philosophy but rejected others. The article also discusses the absence of a philosophical curriculum at the time of Simplicius' Aristotelian Commentaries, which led to his concern about the innate unity of ancient Greek philosophy being broken apart. [introduction]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QL5VZHREOe1cXap","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":326,"full_name":"Strobel, Benedikt","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1320,"section_of":289,"pages":"69-99","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":289,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"de","title":"Die Kunst der philosophischen Exegese bei den sp\u00e4tanitken Platon- und Aristoteles Kommentatoren. Akten der 15. Tagung der Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung vom 4. bis 6. Oktober 2012 in Trier","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Strobel2019","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2018","edition_no":null,"free_date":"2018","abstract":"This volume uses prominent case examples to examine the amalgam of exegetical and philosophical interests that characterize the literature of Neoplatonist commentary in late antiquity. The essays consistently reveal the linguistic difficulties encountered by the commentators due to the complex relationship between Platonic and Aristotelian theory.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/rOy7sqluVGEXcC1","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":289,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 Boston","publisher":"De Gruyter","series":"Philosophie der Antike","volume":"36","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Simplicius, Syrianus and the Harmony of Ancient Philosophers"]}
Title | Simplicius’ Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2016 |
Published in | Aristotle Re-Interpreted. New Findings on Seven Hundred Years of the Ancient Commentators |
Pages | 531–540 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Hoffmann, Philippe , Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | Sorabji, Richard |
Translator(s) |
Simplicius’ Corollary on Place (Corollarium de loco) is not a doxographic text but a strictly Neoplatonic philosophical work, with its own philosophical method. It takes the form of a digression interrupting the continuity of Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics (itself a written work intended for readers, hoi entugkhanontes, hoi enteuxomenoi), and its literary genre is that of a monograph treatise using dialectic and exegesis as its principal methods. The dialectical method consists in discussing the opinions of Simplicius’ predecessors, ancient and modern, mainly Aristotle and Proclus, to pave the way for the exposition of the truth, following the method inaugurated by Aristotle in the Topics and still very much alive. It also proceeds by puzzles and solutions (aporiai kai luseis). Th e exegetic method reappears even within a digression which breaks with the continuous commentary and Simplicius devotes sometimes long passages to quoting and commenting on texts from Aristotle, Theophrastus, Proclus, and Damascius, but also from the Chaldaean Oracles, Iamblichus, or Syrianus. Throughout this piece Simplicius maintains complete control over his material which includes the art of rhetoric, dialectical technique, and his philosophic intention. In it, he replaces the Aristotelian defi nition of place (‘the first unmoved boundary of the surrounding body’ (to tou periekhontos peras akinêton prôton), Phys . 4.4, 212a20–1) with a new defi nition taken from his master Damascius (place is the measure of the intrinsic positioning (metron tês theseôs) of the parts of a body, and of its right position in a greater surrounding whole), and he departs from Aristotle’s thought with a radical innovation which progressively works its way in. [introduction p. 531-532] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/nyFqYhK3Z7baSF2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1508","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1508,"authors_free":[{"id":2619,"entry_id":1508,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":138,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe","free_first_name":"Philippe","free_last_name":"Hoffmann","norm_person":{"id":138,"first_name":"Philippe ","last_name":"Hoffmann","full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/189361905","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2620,"entry_id":1508,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2621,"entry_id":1508,"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":"Richard","free_last_name":"Sorabji","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":"Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines"},"abstract":"Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place (Corollarium de loco) is not a doxographic text but a strictly Neoplatonic philosophical work, with its own philosophical method. It takes the form of a digression interrupting the continuity of Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics (itself a written work intended for readers, hoi entugkhanontes, hoi enteuxomenoi), and its literary genre is that of a monograph treatise using dialectic and exegesis as its principal methods. The dialectical method consists in discussing the opinions of Simplicius\u2019 predecessors, ancient and modern, mainly Aristotle and Proclus, to pave the way for the exposition of the truth, following the method inaugurated by Aristotle in the Topics and still very much alive. It also proceeds by puzzles and solutions (aporiai kai luseis). Th e exegetic method reappears even within a digression which breaks with the continuous commentary and Simplicius devotes sometimes long passages to quoting and commenting on texts from Aristotle, Theophrastus, Proclus, and Damascius, but also from the Chaldaean Oracles, Iamblichus, or Syrianus. Throughout this piece Simplicius maintains complete control over his material which includes the art of rhetoric, dialectical technique, and his philosophic intention. In it, he replaces the Aristotelian defi nition of place (\u2018the first unmoved boundary of the surrounding body\u2019 (to tou periekhontos peras akin\u00eaton pr\u00f4ton), Phys . 4.4, 212a20\u20131) with a new defi nition taken from his master Damascius (place is the measure of the intrinsic positioning (metron t\u00eas these\u00f4s) of the parts of a body, and of its right position in a greater surrounding whole), and he departs from Aristotle\u2019s thought with a radical innovation which progressively works its way in. [introduction p. 531-532]","btype":2,"date":"2016","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/nyFqYhK3Z7baSF2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":138,"full_name":"Hoffmann, Philippe ","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":133,"full_name":"Sorabji, Richard","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1508,"section_of":1419,"pages":"531\u2013540","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":["Simplicius\u2019 Corollary on Place: Method of Philosophising and Doctrines"]}
Title | The Neoplatonic Commentators of Aristotle on the Origins of Language: A New “Tower of Babel”? |
Type | Book Section |
Language | English |
Date | 2019 |
Published in | Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia |
Pages | 95-106 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Chriti, Maria |
Editor(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis , Ierodiakonou, Katerina |
Translator(s) |
The purpose of this paper is to highlight the obligatory and negative character which is credited to the emergence of human language by some Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle, namely Ammonius of Hermeias, Simplicius and Philoponus. Since the emergence of language is treated by these thinkers as being a result of the “fall”of the soul from the Neoplatonic One, I begin with a brief introduction to the Platonic and Neoplatonic theory of the soul’s separation from the world of the intelligibles and its residual innate knowledge. The second part of my contribution deals with the semantic terms and Neoplatonic principles that Ammonius, Simplicius and Philoponus deploy as they discuss the stimulation of the fallen soul’s content with the help of language, laying stress on the urgent and compulsory presence of vocal sounds in contrast to the non-linguistic communication that prevailed before the soul’s embodiment. In the third part, I explore the concept of ‘diversity’in human language as a consequence of the very emergence of language. Finally, I attempt to explain how the conventionality and diversity of human linguistic communication, abundantly contrasted by these Neoplatonists with the lost unitary status of the soul, came to be viewed by them as symptoms of ‘decay’and ‘obligation’. [author's abstract] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0Wo0Qn2Y7sMDExP |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1512","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1512,"authors_free":[{"id":2625,"entry_id":1512,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":561,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Chriti, Maria","free_first_name":"Maria","free_last_name":"Chriti","norm_person":{"id":561,"first_name":"Maria","last_name":"Chriti","full_name":"Chriti, Maria","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2628,"entry_id":1512,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2629,"entry_id":1512,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":560,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","free_first_name":"Katerina","free_last_name":"Ierodiakonou","norm_person":{"id":560,"first_name":"Katerina","last_name":"Ierodiakonou","full_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1135990581","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"The Neoplatonic Commentators of Aristotle on the Origins of Language: A New \u201cTower of Babel\u201d?","main_title":{"title":"The Neoplatonic Commentators of Aristotle on the Origins of Language: A New \u201cTower of Babel\u201d?"},"abstract":"The purpose of this paper is to highlight the obligatory and negative character which is credited to the emergence of human language by some Neoplatonic commentators on Aristotle, namely Ammonius of Hermeias, Simplicius and Philoponus. Since the emergence of language is treated by these thinkers as being a result of the \u201cfall\u201dof the soul from the Neoplatonic One, I begin with a brief introduction to the Platonic and Neoplatonic theory of the soul\u2019s separation from the world of the intelligibles and its residual innate knowledge. The second part of my contribution deals with the semantic terms and Neoplatonic principles that Ammonius, Simplicius and Philoponus deploy as they discuss the stimulation of the fallen soul\u2019s content with the help of language, laying stress on the urgent and compulsory presence of vocal sounds in contrast to the non-linguistic communication that prevailed before the soul\u2019s embodiment. In the third part, I explore the concept of \u2018diversity\u2019in human language as a consequence of the very emergence of language. Finally, I attempt to explain how the conventionality and diversity of human linguistic communication, abundantly contrasted by these Neoplatonists with the lost unitary status of the soul, came to be viewed by them as symptoms of \u2018decay\u2019and \u2018obligation\u2019. [author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0Wo0Qn2Y7sMDExP","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":561,"full_name":"Chriti, Maria","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":560,"full_name":"Ierodiakonou, Katerina","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1512,"section_of":1513,"pages":"95-106","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1513,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Aristotle and His Commentators. Studies in Memory of Paraskevi Kotzia","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2019","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume includes twelve studies by international specialists on Aristotle and his commentators. Among the topics treated are Aristotle's political philosophy and metaphysics, the ancient and Byzantine commentators' scholia on Aristotle's logic, philosophy of language and psychology as well as studies of broader scope on developmentalism in ancient philosophy and the importance of studying Late Antiquity. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Gpbk6H9CplQZVge","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1513,"pubplace":"Berlin \u2013 New York","publisher":"De Gruyter ","series":"Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina. Quellen und Studien","volume":"7","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["The Neoplatonic Commentators of Aristotle on the Origins of Language: A New \u201cTower of Babel\u201d?"]}
Title | Un commentaire perpétuel de Georges Pachymère à la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribué à Michel Psellos |
Type | Article |
Language | French |
Date | 2007 |
Journal | Byzantinische Zeitschrift |
Volume | 100 |
Issue | 2 |
Pages | 637-676 |
Categories | no categories |
Author(s) | Golitsis, Pantelis |
Editor(s) | |
Translator(s) |
Récapitulons l'essentiel des raisonnements philologiques qui nous ont permis de restituer le véritable auteur du commentaire, qui dorénavant doit être attribué à Georges Pachymère. Nous avons vu que l'ensemble de la tradition manuscrite qui attribue le commentaire à Psellos descend d'un ancêtre commun, l'Ambrosianus H 44 sup., écrit à la fin du XIVᵉ siècle. Celui-ci remonte pourtant à un archétype, écrit vers l'an 1300 et aujourd'hui perdu (l'Escorialensis D. IV. 24), dans lequel le commentaire figurait sous le nom de Pachymère, ainsi que nous avons pu le montrer grâce au Vindobonensis phil. gr. 248 et à des témoignages du XVIᵉ siècle. Cet archétype de l'ensemble de la tradition manuscrite du commentaire a été copié sur le Laurentianus plut. 87,5, autographe stricto sensu de Pachymère, dont il se servait pour assurer son enseignement de la Physique. [Conclusion, p. 676] |
Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/VvESFt1BJvfvNnQ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"536","_score":null,"_source":{"id":536,"authors_free":[{"id":758,"entry_id":536,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":129,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","free_first_name":"Pantelis","free_last_name":"Golitsis","norm_person":{"id":129,"first_name":"Pantelis","last_name":"Golitsis","full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Un commentaire perp\u00e9tuel de Georges Pachym\u00e8re \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Michel Psellos","main_title":{"title":"Un commentaire perp\u00e9tuel de Georges Pachym\u00e8re \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Michel Psellos"},"abstract":"R\u00e9capitulons l'essentiel des raisonnements philologiques qui nous ont permis de restituer le v\u00e9ritable auteur du commentaire, qui dor\u00e9navant doit \u00eatre attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Georges Pachym\u00e8re.\r\n\r\nNous avons vu que l'ensemble de la tradition manuscrite qui attribue le commentaire \u00e0 Psellos descend d'un anc\u00eatre commun, l'Ambrosianus H 44 sup., \u00e9crit \u00e0 la fin du XIV\u1d49 si\u00e8cle. Celui-ci remonte pourtant \u00e0 un arch\u00e9type, \u00e9crit vers l'an 1300 et aujourd'hui perdu (l'Escorialensis D. IV. 24), dans lequel le commentaire figurait sous le nom de Pachym\u00e8re, ainsi que nous avons pu le montrer gr\u00e2ce au Vindobonensis phil. gr. 248 et \u00e0 des t\u00e9moignages du XVI\u1d49 si\u00e8cle.\r\n\r\nCet arch\u00e9type de l'ensemble de la tradition manuscrite du commentaire a \u00e9t\u00e9 copi\u00e9 sur le Laurentianus plut. 87,5, autographe stricto sensu de Pachym\u00e8re, dont il se servait pour assurer son enseignement de la Physique.\r\n\r\n[Conclusion, p. 676]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/VvESFt1BJvfvNnQ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":129,"full_name":"Golitsis, Pantelis","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":536,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Byzantinische Zeitschrift ","volume":"100","issue":"2","pages":"637-676"}},"sort":["Un commentaire perp\u00e9tuel de Georges Pachym\u00e8re \u00e0 la Physique d'Aristote, faussement attribu\u00e9 \u00e0 Michel Psellos"]}