| Title | Remarque complémentaire à mon article “Dans quel lieu le néoplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fondé son école de mathémathiques, et où a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manichéen?” |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2007 |
| Journal | The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition |
| Volume | 1 |
| Pages | 263-269 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Concerning the book by R. Arnzen Abū l-‘Abbās an-Nayrīzīs Exzerpte aus (Ps.-?) Simplicius’ Kommentar zu den Definitionen, Postulaten und Axiomen in Euclids Elementa I, the present paper off ers a survey of the way the late Neoplatonists used to conceive and compose their commentaries. Far from trying to be original, each commentary is largely based on the works of predecessors. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MJR57V7OQzq7spB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1179","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1179,"authors_free":[{"id":1753,"entry_id":1179,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Remarque compl\u00e9mentaire \u00e0 mon article \u201cDans quel lieu le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fond\u00e9 son \u00e9cole de math\u00e9mathiques, et o\u00f9 a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manich\u00e9en?\u201d","main_title":{"title":"Remarque compl\u00e9mentaire \u00e0 mon article \u201cDans quel lieu le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fond\u00e9 son \u00e9cole de math\u00e9mathiques, et o\u00f9 a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manich\u00e9en?\u201d"},"abstract":"Concerning the book by R. Arnzen Ab\u016b l-\u2018Abb\u0101s an-Nayr\u012bz\u012bs Exzerpte aus (Ps.-?) Simplicius\u2019 Kommentar zu den Definitionen, Postulaten und Axiomen in Euclids Elementa I, the present paper off ers a survey of the way the late Neoplatonists used to conceive and compose their commentaries. Far from trying to be original, each commentary is largely based on the works of predecessors. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MJR57V7OQzq7spB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1179,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"1","issue":"","pages":"263-269"}},"sort":[2007]}
| Title | Simplicius, in Cat., p. 1,3-3,17 Kalbfleisch: An Important Contribution to the History of the Ancient |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2004 |
| Journal | Rheinisches Museum für Philologie |
| Volume | 147 |
| Issue | 3/4 |
| Pages | 408-420 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In the first place, the survey of the commentaries on the Categories with which Simplicius provides us, as well as the examination undertaken by J. M. Dillon of the fragments of Iamblichus’ commentaries on Plato’s dialogues, show as clearly as possible that the form of the continuous commentary was utilized by the Neoplatonists right from the start, and that it therefore was not introduced by Syrianus. Secondly, an attentive comparison between those Neoplatonic commentaries on the Categories that have come down to us proves that a genuine doctrinal continuity existed from Porphyry to Simplicius. In addition, I consider it likely that an analogous continuity with regard to the tendency to harmonize the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle also existed in the Neoplatonic commentaries on the Metaphysics, of which only that of Syrianus (partial), and that of Asclepius-Ammonius (partial) have come down to us, whereas those of Porphyry and Iamblichus are lost, but attested, and that Syrianus’ attitude, which he manifests in the introduction to his commentary on book My the Metaphysics, is therefore no more original than his use of the form of the continuous commentary. In conclusion, Syrianus was certainly a great philosopher, but, as far as the precise points dealt with in this article are concerned, he was not the innovator he has been made out to be. [conclusion, p. 419-420] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iOqb6gj8D2LqZxB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"638","_score":null,"_source":{"id":638,"authors_free":[{"id":904,"entry_id":638,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, in Cat., p. 1,3-3,17 Kalbfleisch: An Important Contribution to the History of the Ancient","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, in Cat., p. 1,3-3,17 Kalbfleisch: An Important Contribution to the History of the Ancient"},"abstract":"In the first place, the survey of the commentaries on the Categories with which Simplicius provides us, as well as the examination undertaken by J. M. Dillon of the fragments of Iamblichus\u2019 commentaries on Plato\u2019s dialogues, show as clearly as possible that the form of the continuous commentary was utilized by the Neoplatonists right from the start, and that it therefore was not introduced by Syrianus. Secondly, an attentive comparison between those Neoplatonic commentaries on the Categories that have come down to us proves that a genuine doctrinal continuity existed from Porphyry to Simplicius. In addition, I consider it likely that an analogous continuity with regard to the tendency to harmonize the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle also existed in the Neoplatonic commentaries on the Metaphysics, of which only that of Syrianus (partial), and that of Asclepius-Ammonius (partial) have come down to us, whereas those of Porphyry and Iamblichus are lost, but attested, and that Syrianus\u2019 attitude, which he manifests in the introduction to his commentary on book My the Metaphysics, is therefore no more original than his use of the form of the continuous commentary. In conclusion, Syrianus was certainly a great philosopher, but, as far as the precise points dealt with in this article are concerned, he was not the innovator he has been made out to be. [conclusion, p. 419-420]","btype":3,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iOqb6gj8D2LqZxB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":638,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie","volume":"147","issue":"3\/4","pages":"408-420"}},"sort":[2004]}
| Title | Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der römischen Kaiserzeit |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2003 |
| Journal | Rhein. Museum |
| Volume | 146 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 49–71 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Der Text beschreibt den Zustand des philosophischen Unterrichts während der römischen Kaiserzeit. Obwohl die bekannten Philosophenschulen in Athen nicht mehr existierten, hatten die vier philosophischen Richtungen des Hellenismus dennoch Verbreitung gefunden und wurden in privaten Schulen unterrichtet. Diese Schulen waren jedoch meist kurzlebig und hingen vom Erfolg des Lehrers ab. Philosophie wurde an den griechischen Gymnasien nicht gelehrt, stattdessen konzentrierte man sich auf Grammatik und Rhetorik. Im lateinischen Bereich führten enge Beziehungen führender Römer zu stoischen Philosophen zur Verbreitung der Lehren. Der Philosophieunterricht begann meist erst nach der Pubertät, und das Alter spielte eine wichtige Rolle bei der Seelenleitung. Das Greisenalter wurde als optimal angesehen, da der körperliche Verfall der freien Betätigung des Geistes entgegenkomme. Das Bild des philosophischen Unterrichtsbetriebes in der Kaiserzeit war somit sehr komplex. [introduction/conclusion] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/bCAQ9Hlrduneobp |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1334","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1334,"authors_free":[{"id":1967,"entry_id":1334,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der r\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit","main_title":{"title":"Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der r\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit"},"abstract":"Der Text beschreibt den Zustand des philosophischen Unterrichts w\u00e4hrend der r\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit. Obwohl die bekannten Philosophenschulen in Athen nicht mehr existierten, hatten die vier philosophischen Richtungen des Hellenismus dennoch Verbreitung gefunden und wurden in privaten Schulen unterrichtet. Diese Schulen waren jedoch meist kurzlebig und hingen vom Erfolg des Lehrers ab. Philosophie wurde an den griechischen Gymnasien nicht gelehrt, stattdessen konzentrierte man sich auf Grammatik und Rhetorik. Im lateinischen Bereich f\u00fchrten enge Beziehungen f\u00fchrender R\u00f6mer zu stoischen Philosophen zur Verbreitung der Lehren. Der Philosophieunterricht begann meist erst nach der Pubert\u00e4t, und das Alter spielte eine wichtige Rolle bei der Seelenleitung. Das Greisenalter wurde als optimal angesehen, da der k\u00f6rperliche Verfall der freien Bet\u00e4tigung des Geistes entgegenkomme. Das Bild des philosophischen Unterrichtsbetriebes in der Kaiserzeit war somit sehr komplex. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"2003","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/bCAQ9Hlrduneobp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1334,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rhein. Museum","volume":"146","issue":"1","pages":"49\u201371"}},"sort":[2003]}
| Title | Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle's "De Anima" (CAG XI) : A Methodological Study |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Journal | Mnemosyne, Fourth Series |
| Volume | 55 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 159–199 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| This article represents a new contribution to the author's debate with C. Steel as to the authenticity of the Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima, attributed by the manuscripts to the 6th-century A.D. Neoplatonist philosopher Simplicius. On the basis of what he claims are stylistic and doctrinal differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries, Steel has argued that the In DA cannot be by Simplicius, but is instead to be attributed to his contemporary Priscian of Lydia. In the present article, it is argued (1) that the alleged stylistic differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries can be explained by other considerations: in particular, the vocabulary and style of the Neoplatonist commentators is largely determined by the text commented upon, as well as the level of studies of the audience for whom each commentary is intended. (2) The alleged doctrinal differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other com- mentaries simply do not exist. Careful examination of Steel's arguments shows that they suffer from serious methodological flaws, including the failure to take into consideration Simplicius' Commentary on the Manual of Epictetus, and the ambiguity of Neoplatonic philosophical terminology. It is concluded that in the whole of Steel's argumentation, there is not one decisive argument which would allow us to conclude that the commentary on the De Anima, attributed by direct and indirect tradition to Simplicius, is inauthentic. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/BFVk6vhtz2ul08p |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"692","_score":null,"_source":{"id":692,"authors_free":[{"id":1030,"entry_id":692,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle's \"De Anima\" (CAG XI) : A Methodological Study","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle's \"De Anima\" (CAG XI) : A Methodological Study"},"abstract":"This article represents a new contribution to the author's debate with C. Steel as to the authenticity of the Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima, attributed by the manuscripts to the 6th-century A.D. Neoplatonist philosopher Simplicius. On the basis of what he claims are stylistic and doctrinal differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries, Steel has argued that the In DA cannot be by Simplicius, but is instead to be attributed to his contemporary Priscian of Lydia. In the present article, it is argued (1) that the alleged stylistic differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries can be explained by other considerations: in particular, the vocabulary and style of the Neoplatonist commentators is largely determined by the text commented upon, as well as the level of studies of the audience for whom each commentary is intended. (2) The alleged doctrinal differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other com- mentaries simply do not exist. Careful examination of Steel's arguments shows that they suffer from serious methodological flaws, including the failure to take into consideration Simplicius' Commentary on the Manual of Epictetus, and the ambiguity of Neoplatonic philosophical terminology. It is concluded that in the whole of Steel's argumentation, there is not one decisive argument which would allow us to conclude that the commentary on the De Anima, attributed by direct and indirect tradition to Simplicius, is inauthentic. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/BFVk6vhtz2ul08p","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":692,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne, Fourth Series","volume":"55","issue":"2","pages":"159\u2013199"}},"sort":[2002]}
| Title | Aspects de la théorie de la perception chez les néoplatoniciens : sensation (αἴσθησις), sensation commune (κοινὴ αἴσθησις), sensibles communs (κοινὰ αἰσθητά) et conscience de soi (συναίσθησις) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1997 |
| Journal | Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale |
| Volume | 8 |
| Pages | 33–85 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Je résume : en ce qui concerne la possibilité pour les sensations d'avoir conscience de leur activité, Pseudo-Philopon se distingue aussi bien de Priscien que de Simplicius, puisqu’il n'attribue plus le moindre rôle à la sensation commune, mais accorde ce privilège à une faculté de l'âme raisonnable, à la faculté d'attention. [conclusion p. 85] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/N9wzp13Ul2KftSa |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"643","_score":null,"_source":{"id":643,"authors_free":[{"id":918,"entry_id":643,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aspects de la th\u00e9orie de la perception chez les n\u00e9oplatoniciens : sensation (\u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), sensation commune (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), sensibles communs (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac) et conscience de soi (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2)","main_title":{"title":"Aspects de la th\u00e9orie de la perception chez les n\u00e9oplatoniciens : sensation (\u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), sensation commune (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), sensibles communs (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac) et conscience de soi (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2)"},"abstract":"Je r\u00e9sume : en ce qui concerne la possibilit\u00e9 pour les sensations d'avoir conscience de leur activit\u00e9, Pseudo-Philopon se distingue aussi bien de Priscien que de Simplicius, puisqu\u2019il n'attribue plus le moindre r\u00f4le \u00e0 la sensation commune, mais accorde ce privil\u00e8ge \u00e0 une facult\u00e9 de l'\u00e2me raisonnable, \u00e0 la facult\u00e9 d'attention. [conclusion p. 85]","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/N9wzp13Ul2KftSa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":643,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale","volume":"8","issue":"","pages":"33\u201385"}},"sort":[1997]}
| Title | Le commentaire philosophique continu dans l’Antiquité |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1997 |
| Journal | AnTard (Antiquité Tardive. Revue internationale d’histoire et d’archéolog) |
| Volume | 5 |
| Pages | 169–176 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Opening with an overview of the historical development of the continuous philosophical commentary, this study aims to bring out the profound differences between modem philosophicalcommentaries and the Late Antique commentaries on Plato and Aristotle. The modem commentariesare concerned to explain the texts for an audience which is not defined. By contrast, the ancient commentaries belonged to a precise programme of reading the texts concerned, a programme which corresponded both to levels of knowledge and levels of spiritual progression. They were therefore addressed, depending on the type of text, to beginners, to intermediate or to very advanced students; and their content and method varied greatly according to the level of the intended readership. Furthermore, explaining the text was never an end in itself; the commentary was intended not so much to expand knowledge as to assist in the acquisition of a particular ethical attitude, leading to a particular way of life. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/bNInszbNd3YEzTp |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"695","_score":null,"_source":{"id":695,"authors_free":[{"id":1034,"entry_id":695,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le commentaire philosophique continu dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9","main_title":{"title":"Le commentaire philosophique continu dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9"},"abstract":"Opening with an overview of the historical development of the continuous philosophical commentary, this study aims to bring out the profound differences between modem philosophicalcommentaries and the Late Antique commentaries on Plato and Aristotle. The modem commentariesare concerned to explain the texts for an audience which is not defined. By contrast, the ancient commentaries belonged to a precise programme of reading the texts concerned, a programme which corresponded both to levels of knowledge and levels of spiritual progression. They were therefore addressed, depending on the type of text, to beginners, to intermediate or to very advanced students; and their content and method varied greatly according to the level of the intended readership. Furthermore, explaining the text was never an end in itself; the commentary was intended not so much to expand knowledge as to assist in the acquisition of a particular ethical attitude, leading to a particular way of life. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/bNInszbNd3YEzTp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":695,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"AnTard (Antiquit\u00e9 Tardive. Revue internationale d\u2019histoire et d\u2019arch\u00e9olog)","volume":"5","issue":"","pages":"169\u2013176"}},"sort":[1997]}
| Title | Dans quel lieu le néoplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fondé son école de mathématiques, et où a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manichéen? |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1997 |
| Journal | The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition |
| Volume | 1 |
| Pages | 42–107 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The historian Agathias (Hist. II 30.3-31.4) relates that under the Emperor Justinian seven philosophers (Damascius, Simplicius, Eulamius, Priscianus, Hermeias, Diogenes, and Isidorus) sought refuge in Persia because of their own country’s anti-pagan laws but that they ultimately returned in 532 to the Roman Empire. There have been many hypotheses about the fate of these philosophers after their return. Most recently M. Tardieu has argued that these philosophers went to Harran, a town that was located on the Persian frontier and that remained mostly pagan until the tenth century. This hypothesis, which M. Tardieu had backed with a number of arguments, has found many echoes, both positive and negative, in subsequent secondary literature. Yet the complexity of the issue has never really been faced by Tardieu’s critics. For example, the fact that, according to Arab sources, Simplicius could found a famous school of mathematics has been completely neglected, as has the fact that details of the dogmas of Manicheanism, which he obtained through his encounter with a member of that sect, enable one to envision a Mesopotamian locale for this encounter. The present study aims at taking stock of the elements of this controversy, beginning with a detailed article by D. Watts and a review by C. Luna. Watts mostly bases his criticisms of M. Tardieu and me on Luna’s summary. In the conclusion (pages 58-59), I summarize the main points that seem to me to confirm M. Tardieu’s hypothesis. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/WI7RiFFpXjaRVSX |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"698","_score":null,"_source":{"id":698,"authors_free":[{"id":1038,"entry_id":698,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Dans quel lieu le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fond\u00e9 son \u00e9cole de math\u00e9matiques, et o\u00f9 a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manich\u00e9en?","main_title":{"title":"Dans quel lieu le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fond\u00e9 son \u00e9cole de math\u00e9matiques, et o\u00f9 a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manich\u00e9en?"},"abstract":"The historian Agathias (Hist. II 30.3-31.4) relates that under the Emperor Justinian seven philosophers (Damascius, Simplicius, Eulamius, Priscianus, Hermeias, Diogenes, and Isidorus) sought refuge in Persia because of their own country\u2019s anti-pagan laws but that they ultimately returned in 532 to the Roman Empire. There have been many hypotheses about the fate of these philosophers after their return. Most recently M. Tardieu has argued that these philosophers went to Harran, a town that was located on the Persian frontier and that remained mostly pagan until the tenth century. This hypothesis, which M. Tardieu had backed with a number of arguments, has found many echoes, both positive and negative, in subsequent secondary literature. Yet the complexity of the issue has never really been faced by Tardieu\u2019s critics. For example, the fact that, according to Arab sources, Simplicius could found a famous school of mathematics has been completely neglected, as has the fact that details of the dogmas of Manicheanism, which he obtained through his encounter with a member of that sect, enable one to envision a Mesopotamian locale for this encounter. The present study aims at taking stock of the elements of this controversy, beginning with a detailed article by D. Watts and a review by C. Luna. Watts mostly bases his criticisms of M. Tardieu and me on Luna\u2019s summary. In the conclusion (pages 58-59), I summarize the main points that seem to me to confirm M. Tardieu\u2019s hypothesis. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WI7RiFFpXjaRVSX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":698,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"1","issue":"","pages":"42\u2013107"}},"sort":[1997]}
| Title | Aristote dans l'enseignement philosophique néoplatonicien : les préfaces descommentaires sur les Catégories |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1992 |
| Journal | Revue de théologie et de philosophie |
| Volume | 124 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 407–425 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Cet article représente une contribution de plus à ma critique générale des thèses de Praechter selon lesquelles l'école néoplatonicienne dite «d'Alexandrie» se distinguerait, non seulement par le lieu de son enseignement, de celle dite «d'Athènes», mais encore et surtout par ses doctrines philosophiques et par son attitude envers T œuvre d'Aristote. La comparaison entre elles des préfaces des cinq commentaires néoplatoniciens des Catégories d'Aristote. dont l'un, celui de Simplicius, appartiendrait, selon Praechter, à l'école d'Athènes, et ceux des quatre autres à l'école d'Alexandrie, fait apparaître la concordance fondamentale de la philosophie néoplatonicienne qui était enseignée à Athènes avec celle qui était enseignée à Alexandrie: toutes deux interprètent la philosophie d'Aristote dans la même perspective néoplatonicienne et la même volonté d'harmoniser Platon et Aristote. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/7tyvPpwgQ6rj4sJ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"668","_score":null,"_source":{"id":668,"authors_free":[{"id":979,"entry_id":668,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristote dans l'enseignement philosophique n\u00e9oplatonicien : les pr\u00e9faces descommentaires sur les Cat\u00e9gories","main_title":{"title":"Aristote dans l'enseignement philosophique n\u00e9oplatonicien : les pr\u00e9faces descommentaires sur les Cat\u00e9gories"},"abstract":"Cet article repr\u00e9sente une contribution de plus \u00e0 ma critique g\u00e9n\u00e9rale des th\u00e8ses de Praechter selon lesquelles l'\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne dite \u00abd'Alexandrie\u00bb se distinguerait, non seulement par le lieu de son enseignement, de celle dite \u00abd'Ath\u00e8nes\u00bb, mais encore et surtout par ses\r\ndoctrines philosophiques et par son attitude envers T \u0153uvre d'Aristote. La comparaison entre elles des pr\u00e9faces des cinq commentaires n\u00e9oplatoniciens des Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote. dont l'un, celui de Simplicius, appartiendrait, selon Praechter, \u00e0 l'\u00e9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes, et ceux des quatre autres \u00e0 l'\u00e9cole d'Alexandrie, fait appara\u00eetre la concordance fondamentale de la philosophie n\u00e9oplatonicienne qui \u00e9tait enseign\u00e9e \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes avec celle qui \u00e9tait enseign\u00e9e \u00e0 Alexandrie: toutes deux interpr\u00e8tent la philosophie d'Aristote dans la m\u00eame perspective n\u00e9oplatonicienne et la m\u00eame volont\u00e9 d'harmoniser Platon et Aristote. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1992","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/7tyvPpwgQ6rj4sJ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":668,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de th\u00e9ologie et de philosophie","volume":"124","issue":"4","pages":"407\u2013425"}},"sort":[1992]}
| Title | Colloque international sur la vie, l'œuvre et la survie de Simplicius |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1986 |
| Journal | Gnomon |
| Volume | 58 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 191-192 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Vom 28. September bis zum 1. Oktober 1985 fand in Paris in der Fondation Hugot du Collège de France ein internationales Colloquium statt, das zum ersten Mal in der Geschichte der Klassischen Philologie und der Geschichte der Philosophie den neuplatonischen Philosophen Simplikios zum Gegenstand hatte. Das Ziel des Colloquiums war es, einen ersten Gedankenaustausch derjenigen, nicht sehr zahlreichen, Wissenschaftler zu ermöglichen, die etwa seit einem Jahrzehnt begonnen haben, das philosophische Denken des Simplikios systematisch zu erfassen, gesicherte Text grundlagen durch die Erstellung neuer kritischer Editionen zu liefern und die Texte selbst durch Übersetzungen einem weiteren, philosophisch interessierten Publikum zugänglich zu machen. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AUBZDJhIvjp1dxV |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"584","_score":null,"_source":{"id":584,"authors_free":[{"id":828,"entry_id":584,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Colloque international sur la vie, l'\u0153uvre et la survie de Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Colloque international sur la vie, l'\u0153uvre et la survie de Simplicius"},"abstract":"Vom 28. September bis zum 1. Oktober 1985 fand in Paris in der Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France ein internationales Colloquium statt, das zum ersten Mal in der Geschichte der Klassischen Philologie und der Geschichte der Philosophie den neuplatonischen Philosophen Simplikios zum Gegenstand hatte. Das Ziel des Colloquiums war es, einen ersten Gedankenaustausch derjenigen, nicht sehr zahlreichen, Wissenschaftler zu erm\u00f6glichen, die etwa seit einem Jahrzehnt begonnen haben, das philosophische Denken des Simplikios systematisch zu erfassen, gesicherte Text grundlagen durch die Erstellung neuer kritischer Editionen zu liefern und die Texte selbst durch \u00dcbersetzungen einem weiteren, philosophisch interessierten Publikum zug\u00e4nglich zu machen. ","btype":3,"date":"1986","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AUBZDJhIvjp1dxV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":584,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Gnomon","volume":"58","issue":"2","pages":"191-192"}},"sort":[1986]}
| Title | La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'Épictète. Addenda et Corrigenda |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1983 |
| Journal | Revue d'histoire des textes |
| Volume | 11 |
| Pages | 387-395 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The present study, as the title indicates, brings some supplementary information and minor corrections to my article on La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le « Manuel » d'Épictète, which appeared in volume VIII (1978) if the Revue d'Histoire des Textes (pp. 1-108). As part of these addenda, I have identified two new Greek texts, contained in the Neapolitans III. B. 12 : one fragment of Aristotle's Metaphysics, and another fragment of the commentary by Simplicius on Aristotle's De caelo ; each of these fragments is the length of a quaternion. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IyOsWDpihx7t4Q1 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1496","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1496,"authors_free":[{"id":2596,"entry_id":1496,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te. Addenda et Corrigenda","main_title":{"title":"La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te. Addenda et Corrigenda"},"abstract":"The present study, as the title indicates, brings some supplementary information and minor corrections to my article on La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le \u00ab Manuel \u00bb d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te, which appeared in volume VIII (1978) if\r\nthe Revue d'Histoire des Textes (pp. 1-108). As part of these addenda, I have identified two new Greek texts, contained in the Neapolitans III. B. 12 : one fragment of Aristotle's Metaphysics, and another fragment of the commentary by Simplicius on Aristotle's De caelo ; each of these fragments is the length of a quaternion. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1983","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IyOsWDpihx7t4Q1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1496,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue d'histoire des textes","volume":"11","issue":"","pages":"387-395"}},"sort":[1983]}
| Title | Die Widerlegung des Manichäismus im Epiktetkommentar des Simplikios |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1969 |
| Journal | Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie |
| Volume | 51 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 31-57 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| Wir haben gesehen, dass Simplikios seiner kurzen Abhandlung über den Manichäismus einen durchaus kunstvollen Aufbau zu geben wusste. Obwohl sie in den großen Zusammenhang seines Epiktetkommentars eingebaut ist, bildet sie doch in sich ein abgerundetes Ganzes. Was die Art seiner Argumentation betrifft, so findet sich in ihr wohl kaum ein Gedanke, der sich nicht schon so oder ähnlich bei Alexander von Lykopolis, Titus von Bostra, Epiphanios oder Augustinus ausgedrückt fände. Das soll natürlich nicht unbedingt heißen, dass Simplikios einen von diesen Schriftstellern direkt benutzt hätte; vielmehr ist damit zu rechnen, dass sich sehr bald ein festes Schema antimanichäischer Polemik herausgebildet hatte – etwa so, wie es in hellenistischer Zeit bestimmte Argumentationsschemata gab, die zum Gemeingut der philosophischen Widerlegung von Epikureern und Stoikern geworden waren. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit verdient die kleine Abhandlung des Simplikios eher dadurch, dass sie Anspielungen auf Lehren der Manichäer enthält, deren Hintergrund, soweit ich sehe, bis heute nicht genügend erhellt ist. In welcher Umgebung hat man den manichäischen Weisen zu suchen, dem Simplikios seine Information über die manichäische Kosmogonie verdankt? Stammte diese Bekanntschaft aus der Zeit seiner Studien in Alexandrien, oder hatte Simplikios mit dem Manichäer anlässlich seines Aufenthaltes in Persien bei dem philosophisch interessierten König Chosrau sprechen können, der ja für seine Diskussionsveranstaltungen – unter anderem über die Frage, ob man ein oder zwei Prinzipien aller Dinge anzunehmen habe – bekannt war? Wie Prächter aus philosophisch-dogmatischen Gründen auf eine frühe, d. h. vor der Übersiedlung des Simplikios nach Athen gelegene Entstehungszeit des Epiktetkommentars schließt, besteht meines Erachtens kein Grund, da keineswegs wichtige Differenzen zwischen dem Neuplatonismus des Epiktetkommentars und dem der athenischen Schule bestehen. Im Gegenteil, stellenweise ist ein starker Einfluss des Proklos nachzuweisen. Aus der Bemerkung des Simplikios, dass ihm die Gelegenheit, Epiktet zu kommentieren, unter den gegenwärtigen Zeitumständen sehr willkommen gewesen sei, glaube ich eher auf eine nach dem Edikt Justinians gelegene Entstehungszeit schließen zu dürfen. Eine Begegnung mit manichäischen Lehren im asiatischen Bereich und deren Aufnahme in den Kommentar lagen somit immerhin im Bereich des Möglichen. Das Anliegen des vorliegenden Aufsatzes ist es daher, diese teilweise aus den textlichen Veränderungen noch deutlicher hervortretenden Probleme, auf die ich im Zusammenhang mit den Arbeiten zu einer Neuausgabe des Epiktetkommentars gestoßen bin, wieder einmal aufzuwerfen und, wenn möglich, dem Interesse der Fachleute dieses so schwierigen Gebietes zu empfehlen. [conclusion p. 56-57] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YbXwCc1R01MthxV |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1131","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1131,"authors_free":[{"id":1706,"entry_id":1131,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Widerlegung des Manich\u00e4ismus im Epiktetkommentar des Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"Die Widerlegung des Manich\u00e4ismus im Epiktetkommentar des Simplikios"},"abstract":"Wir haben gesehen, dass Simplikios seiner kurzen Abhandlung \u00fcber den Manich\u00e4ismus einen durchaus kunstvollen Aufbau zu geben wusste. Obwohl sie in den gro\u00dfen Zusammenhang seines Epiktetkommentars eingebaut ist, bildet sie doch in sich ein abgerundetes Ganzes. Was die Art seiner Argumentation betrifft, so findet sich in ihr wohl kaum ein Gedanke, der sich nicht schon so oder \u00e4hnlich bei Alexander von Lykopolis, Titus von Bostra, Epiphanios oder Augustinus ausgedr\u00fcckt f\u00e4nde. Das soll nat\u00fcrlich nicht unbedingt hei\u00dfen, dass Simplikios einen von diesen Schriftstellern direkt benutzt h\u00e4tte; vielmehr ist damit zu rechnen, dass sich sehr bald ein festes Schema antimanich\u00e4ischer Polemik herausgebildet hatte \u2013 etwa so, wie es in hellenistischer Zeit bestimmte Argumentationsschemata gab, die zum Gemeingut der philosophischen Widerlegung von Epikureern und Stoikern geworden waren.\r\n\r\nBesondere Aufmerksamkeit verdient die kleine Abhandlung des Simplikios eher dadurch, dass sie Anspielungen auf Lehren der Manich\u00e4er enth\u00e4lt, deren Hintergrund, soweit ich sehe, bis heute nicht gen\u00fcgend erhellt ist. In welcher Umgebung hat man den manich\u00e4ischen Weisen zu suchen, dem Simplikios seine Information \u00fcber die manich\u00e4ische Kosmogonie verdankt? Stammte diese Bekanntschaft aus der Zeit seiner Studien in Alexandrien, oder hatte Simplikios mit dem Manich\u00e4er anl\u00e4sslich seines Aufenthaltes in Persien bei dem philosophisch interessierten K\u00f6nig Chosrau sprechen k\u00f6nnen, der ja f\u00fcr seine Diskussionsveranstaltungen \u2013 unter anderem \u00fcber die Frage, ob man ein oder zwei Prinzipien aller Dinge anzunehmen habe \u2013 bekannt war?\r\n\r\nWie Pr\u00e4chter aus philosophisch-dogmatischen Gr\u00fcnden auf eine fr\u00fche, d. h. vor der \u00dcbersiedlung des Simplikios nach Athen gelegene Entstehungszeit des Epiktetkommentars schlie\u00dft, besteht meines Erachtens kein Grund, da keineswegs wichtige Differenzen zwischen dem Neuplatonismus des Epiktetkommentars und dem der athenischen Schule bestehen. Im Gegenteil, stellenweise ist ein starker Einfluss des Proklos nachzuweisen. Aus der Bemerkung des Simplikios, dass ihm die Gelegenheit, Epiktet zu kommentieren, unter den gegenw\u00e4rtigen Zeitumst\u00e4nden sehr willkommen gewesen sei, glaube ich eher auf eine nach dem Edikt Justinians gelegene Entstehungszeit schlie\u00dfen zu d\u00fcrfen. Eine Begegnung mit manich\u00e4ischen Lehren im asiatischen Bereich und deren Aufnahme in den Kommentar lagen somit immerhin im Bereich des M\u00f6glichen.\r\n\r\nDas Anliegen des vorliegenden Aufsatzes ist es daher, diese teilweise aus den textlichen Ver\u00e4nderungen noch deutlicher hervortretenden Probleme, auf die ich im Zusammenhang mit den Arbeiten zu einer Neuausgabe des Epiktetkommentars gesto\u00dfen bin, wieder einmal aufzuwerfen und, wenn m\u00f6glich, dem Interesse der Fachleute dieses so schwierigen Gebietes zu empfehlen. [conclusion p. 56-57]","btype":3,"date":"1969","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YbXwCc1R01MthxV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1131,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie","volume":"51","issue":"1","pages":"31-57"}},"sort":[1969]}
| Title | Aristote dans l'enseignement philosophique néoplatonicien : les préfaces descommentaires sur les Catégories |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1992 |
| Journal | Revue de théologie et de philosophie |
| Volume | 124 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 407–425 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Cet article représente une contribution de plus à ma critique générale des thèses de Praechter selon lesquelles l'école néoplatonicienne dite «d'Alexandrie» se distinguerait, non seulement par le lieu de son enseignement, de celle dite «d'Athènes», mais encore et surtout par ses doctrines philosophiques et par son attitude envers T œuvre d'Aristote. La comparaison entre elles des préfaces des cinq commentaires néoplatoniciens des Catégories d'Aristote. dont l'un, celui de Simplicius, appartiendrait, selon Praechter, à l'école d'Athènes, et ceux des quatre autres à l'école d'Alexandrie, fait apparaître la concordance fondamentale de la philosophie néoplatonicienne qui était enseignée à Athènes avec celle qui était enseignée à Alexandrie: toutes deux interprètent la philosophie d'Aristote dans la même perspective néoplatonicienne et la même volonté d'harmoniser Platon et Aristote. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/7tyvPpwgQ6rj4sJ |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"668","_score":null,"_source":{"id":668,"authors_free":[{"id":979,"entry_id":668,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aristote dans l'enseignement philosophique n\u00e9oplatonicien : les pr\u00e9faces descommentaires sur les Cat\u00e9gories","main_title":{"title":"Aristote dans l'enseignement philosophique n\u00e9oplatonicien : les pr\u00e9faces descommentaires sur les Cat\u00e9gories"},"abstract":"Cet article repr\u00e9sente une contribution de plus \u00e0 ma critique g\u00e9n\u00e9rale des th\u00e8ses de Praechter selon lesquelles l'\u00e9cole n\u00e9oplatonicienne dite \u00abd'Alexandrie\u00bb se distinguerait, non seulement par le lieu de son enseignement, de celle dite \u00abd'Ath\u00e8nes\u00bb, mais encore et surtout par ses\r\ndoctrines philosophiques et par son attitude envers T \u0153uvre d'Aristote. La comparaison entre elles des pr\u00e9faces des cinq commentaires n\u00e9oplatoniciens des Cat\u00e9gories d'Aristote. dont l'un, celui de Simplicius, appartiendrait, selon Praechter, \u00e0 l'\u00e9cole d'Ath\u00e8nes, et ceux des quatre autres \u00e0 l'\u00e9cole d'Alexandrie, fait appara\u00eetre la concordance fondamentale de la philosophie n\u00e9oplatonicienne qui \u00e9tait enseign\u00e9e \u00e0 Ath\u00e8nes avec celle qui \u00e9tait enseign\u00e9e \u00e0 Alexandrie: toutes deux interpr\u00e8tent la philosophie d'Aristote dans la m\u00eame perspective n\u00e9oplatonicienne et la m\u00eame volont\u00e9 d'harmoniser Platon et Aristote. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1992","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/7tyvPpwgQ6rj4sJ","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":668,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue de th\u00e9ologie et de philosophie","volume":"124","issue":"4","pages":"407\u2013425"}},"sort":["Aristote dans l'enseignement philosophique n\u00e9oplatonicien : les pr\u00e9faces descommentaires sur les Cat\u00e9gories"]}
| Title | Aspects de la théorie de la perception chez les néoplatoniciens : sensation (αἴσθησις), sensation commune (κοινὴ αἴσθησις), sensibles communs (κοινὰ αἰσθητά) et conscience de soi (συναίσθησις) |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1997 |
| Journal | Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale |
| Volume | 8 |
| Pages | 33–85 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Je résume : en ce qui concerne la possibilité pour les sensations d'avoir conscience de leur activité, Pseudo-Philopon se distingue aussi bien de Priscien que de Simplicius, puisqu’il n'attribue plus le moindre rôle à la sensation commune, mais accorde ce privilège à une faculté de l'âme raisonnable, à la faculté d'attention. [conclusion p. 85] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/N9wzp13Ul2KftSa |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"643","_score":null,"_source":{"id":643,"authors_free":[{"id":918,"entry_id":643,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Aspects de la th\u00e9orie de la perception chez les n\u00e9oplatoniciens : sensation (\u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), sensation commune (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), sensibles communs (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac) et conscience de soi (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2)","main_title":{"title":"Aspects de la th\u00e9orie de la perception chez les n\u00e9oplatoniciens : sensation (\u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), sensation commune (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), sensibles communs (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac) et conscience de soi (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2)"},"abstract":"Je r\u00e9sume : en ce qui concerne la possibilit\u00e9 pour les sensations d'avoir conscience de leur activit\u00e9, Pseudo-Philopon se distingue aussi bien de Priscien que de Simplicius, puisqu\u2019il n'attribue plus le moindre r\u00f4le \u00e0 la sensation commune, mais accorde ce privil\u00e8ge \u00e0 une facult\u00e9 de l'\u00e2me raisonnable, \u00e0 la facult\u00e9 d'attention. [conclusion p. 85]","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/N9wzp13Ul2KftSa","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":643,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica Medievale","volume":"8","issue":"","pages":"33\u201385"}},"sort":["Aspects de la th\u00e9orie de la perception chez les n\u00e9oplatoniciens : sensation (\u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), sensation commune (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b1\u1f34\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), sensibles communs (\u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac) et conscience de soi (\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2)"]}
| Title | Colloque international sur la vie, l'œuvre et la survie de Simplicius |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1986 |
| Journal | Gnomon |
| Volume | 58 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 191-192 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Vom 28. September bis zum 1. Oktober 1985 fand in Paris in der Fondation Hugot du Collège de France ein internationales Colloquium statt, das zum ersten Mal in der Geschichte der Klassischen Philologie und der Geschichte der Philosophie den neuplatonischen Philosophen Simplikios zum Gegenstand hatte. Das Ziel des Colloquiums war es, einen ersten Gedankenaustausch derjenigen, nicht sehr zahlreichen, Wissenschaftler zu ermöglichen, die etwa seit einem Jahrzehnt begonnen haben, das philosophische Denken des Simplikios systematisch zu erfassen, gesicherte Text grundlagen durch die Erstellung neuer kritischer Editionen zu liefern und die Texte selbst durch Übersetzungen einem weiteren, philosophisch interessierten Publikum zugänglich zu machen. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/AUBZDJhIvjp1dxV |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"584","_score":null,"_source":{"id":584,"authors_free":[{"id":828,"entry_id":584,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Colloque international sur la vie, l'\u0153uvre et la survie de Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Colloque international sur la vie, l'\u0153uvre et la survie de Simplicius"},"abstract":"Vom 28. September bis zum 1. Oktober 1985 fand in Paris in der Fondation Hugot du Coll\u00e8ge de France ein internationales Colloquium statt, das zum ersten Mal in der Geschichte der Klassischen Philologie und der Geschichte der Philosophie den neuplatonischen Philosophen Simplikios zum Gegenstand hatte. Das Ziel des Colloquiums war es, einen ersten Gedankenaustausch derjenigen, nicht sehr zahlreichen, Wissenschaftler zu erm\u00f6glichen, die etwa seit einem Jahrzehnt begonnen haben, das philosophische Denken des Simplikios systematisch zu erfassen, gesicherte Text grundlagen durch die Erstellung neuer kritischer Editionen zu liefern und die Texte selbst durch \u00dcbersetzungen einem weiteren, philosophisch interessierten Publikum zug\u00e4nglich zu machen. ","btype":3,"date":"1986","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/AUBZDJhIvjp1dxV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":584,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Gnomon","volume":"58","issue":"2","pages":"191-192"}},"sort":["Colloque international sur la vie, l'\u0153uvre et la survie de Simplicius"]}
| Title | Dans quel lieu le néoplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fondé son école de mathématiques, et où a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manichéen? |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1997 |
| Journal | The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition |
| Volume | 1 |
| Pages | 42–107 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
The historian Agathias (Hist. II 30.3-31.4) relates that under the Emperor Justinian seven philosophers (Damascius, Simplicius, Eulamius, Priscianus, Hermeias, Diogenes, and Isidorus) sought refuge in Persia because of their own country’s anti-pagan laws but that they ultimately returned in 532 to the Roman Empire. There have been many hypotheses about the fate of these philosophers after their return. Most recently M. Tardieu has argued that these philosophers went to Harran, a town that was located on the Persian frontier and that remained mostly pagan until the tenth century. This hypothesis, which M. Tardieu had backed with a number of arguments, has found many echoes, both positive and negative, in subsequent secondary literature. Yet the complexity of the issue has never really been faced by Tardieu’s critics. For example, the fact that, according to Arab sources, Simplicius could found a famous school of mathematics has been completely neglected, as has the fact that details of the dogmas of Manicheanism, which he obtained through his encounter with a member of that sect, enable one to envision a Mesopotamian locale for this encounter. The present study aims at taking stock of the elements of this controversy, beginning with a detailed article by D. Watts and a review by C. Luna. Watts mostly bases his criticisms of M. Tardieu and me on Luna’s summary. In the conclusion (pages 58-59), I summarize the main points that seem to me to confirm M. Tardieu’s hypothesis. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/WI7RiFFpXjaRVSX |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"698","_score":null,"_source":{"id":698,"authors_free":[{"id":1038,"entry_id":698,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Dans quel lieu le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fond\u00e9 son \u00e9cole de math\u00e9matiques, et o\u00f9 a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manich\u00e9en?","main_title":{"title":"Dans quel lieu le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fond\u00e9 son \u00e9cole de math\u00e9matiques, et o\u00f9 a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manich\u00e9en?"},"abstract":"The historian Agathias (Hist. II 30.3-31.4) relates that under the Emperor Justinian seven philosophers (Damascius, Simplicius, Eulamius, Priscianus, Hermeias, Diogenes, and Isidorus) sought refuge in Persia because of their own country\u2019s anti-pagan laws but that they ultimately returned in 532 to the Roman Empire. There have been many hypotheses about the fate of these philosophers after their return. Most recently M. Tardieu has argued that these philosophers went to Harran, a town that was located on the Persian frontier and that remained mostly pagan until the tenth century. This hypothesis, which M. Tardieu had backed with a number of arguments, has found many echoes, both positive and negative, in subsequent secondary literature. Yet the complexity of the issue has never really been faced by Tardieu\u2019s critics. For example, the fact that, according to Arab sources, Simplicius could found a famous school of mathematics has been completely neglected, as has the fact that details of the dogmas of Manicheanism, which he obtained through his encounter with a member of that sect, enable one to envision a Mesopotamian locale for this encounter. The present study aims at taking stock of the elements of this controversy, beginning with a detailed article by D. Watts and a review by C. Luna. Watts mostly bases his criticisms of M. Tardieu and me on Luna\u2019s summary. In the conclusion (pages 58-59), I summarize the main points that seem to me to confirm M. Tardieu\u2019s hypothesis. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/WI7RiFFpXjaRVSX","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":698,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"1","issue":"","pages":"42\u2013107"}},"sort":["Dans quel lieu le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fond\u00e9 son \u00e9cole de math\u00e9matiques, et o\u00f9 a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manich\u00e9en?"]}
| Title | Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der römischen Kaiserzeit |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 2003 |
| Journal | Rhein. Museum |
| Volume | 146 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 49–71 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Der Text beschreibt den Zustand des philosophischen Unterrichts während der römischen Kaiserzeit. Obwohl die bekannten Philosophenschulen in Athen nicht mehr existierten, hatten die vier philosophischen Richtungen des Hellenismus dennoch Verbreitung gefunden und wurden in privaten Schulen unterrichtet. Diese Schulen waren jedoch meist kurzlebig und hingen vom Erfolg des Lehrers ab. Philosophie wurde an den griechischen Gymnasien nicht gelehrt, stattdessen konzentrierte man sich auf Grammatik und Rhetorik. Im lateinischen Bereich führten enge Beziehungen führender Römer zu stoischen Philosophen zur Verbreitung der Lehren. Der Philosophieunterricht begann meist erst nach der Pubertät, und das Alter spielte eine wichtige Rolle bei der Seelenleitung. Das Greisenalter wurde als optimal angesehen, da der körperliche Verfall der freien Betätigung des Geistes entgegenkomme. Das Bild des philosophischen Unterrichtsbetriebes in der Kaiserzeit war somit sehr komplex. [introduction/conclusion] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/bCAQ9Hlrduneobp |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1334","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1334,"authors_free":[{"id":1967,"entry_id":1334,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der r\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit","main_title":{"title":"Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der r\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit"},"abstract":"Der Text beschreibt den Zustand des philosophischen Unterrichts w\u00e4hrend der r\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit. Obwohl die bekannten Philosophenschulen in Athen nicht mehr existierten, hatten die vier philosophischen Richtungen des Hellenismus dennoch Verbreitung gefunden und wurden in privaten Schulen unterrichtet. Diese Schulen waren jedoch meist kurzlebig und hingen vom Erfolg des Lehrers ab. Philosophie wurde an den griechischen Gymnasien nicht gelehrt, stattdessen konzentrierte man sich auf Grammatik und Rhetorik. Im lateinischen Bereich f\u00fchrten enge Beziehungen f\u00fchrender R\u00f6mer zu stoischen Philosophen zur Verbreitung der Lehren. Der Philosophieunterricht begann meist erst nach der Pubert\u00e4t, und das Alter spielte eine wichtige Rolle bei der Seelenleitung. Das Greisenalter wurde als optimal angesehen, da der k\u00f6rperliche Verfall der freien Bet\u00e4tigung des Geistes entgegenkomme. Das Bild des philosophischen Unterrichtsbetriebes in der Kaiserzeit war somit sehr komplex. [introduction\/conclusion]","btype":3,"date":"2003","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/bCAQ9Hlrduneobp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1334,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rhein. Museum","volume":"146","issue":"1","pages":"49\u201371"}},"sort":["Der philosophische Unterrichtsbetrieb in der r\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit"]}
| Title | Die Widerlegung des Manichäismus im Epiktetkommentar des Simplikios |
| Type | Article |
| Language | German |
| Date | 1969 |
| Journal | Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie |
| Volume | 51 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 31-57 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Wir haben gesehen, dass Simplikios seiner kurzen Abhandlung über den Manichäismus einen durchaus kunstvollen Aufbau zu geben wusste. Obwohl sie in den großen Zusammenhang seines Epiktetkommentars eingebaut ist, bildet sie doch in sich ein abgerundetes Ganzes. Was die Art seiner Argumentation betrifft, so findet sich in ihr wohl kaum ein Gedanke, der sich nicht schon so oder ähnlich bei Alexander von Lykopolis, Titus von Bostra, Epiphanios oder Augustinus ausgedrückt fände. Das soll natürlich nicht unbedingt heißen, dass Simplikios einen von diesen Schriftstellern direkt benutzt hätte; vielmehr ist damit zu rechnen, dass sich sehr bald ein festes Schema antimanichäischer Polemik herausgebildet hatte – etwa so, wie es in hellenistischer Zeit bestimmte Argumentationsschemata gab, die zum Gemeingut der philosophischen Widerlegung von Epikureern und Stoikern geworden waren. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit verdient die kleine Abhandlung des Simplikios eher dadurch, dass sie Anspielungen auf Lehren der Manichäer enthält, deren Hintergrund, soweit ich sehe, bis heute nicht genügend erhellt ist. In welcher Umgebung hat man den manichäischen Weisen zu suchen, dem Simplikios seine Information über die manichäische Kosmogonie verdankt? Stammte diese Bekanntschaft aus der Zeit seiner Studien in Alexandrien, oder hatte Simplikios mit dem Manichäer anlässlich seines Aufenthaltes in Persien bei dem philosophisch interessierten König Chosrau sprechen können, der ja für seine Diskussionsveranstaltungen – unter anderem über die Frage, ob man ein oder zwei Prinzipien aller Dinge anzunehmen habe – bekannt war? Wie Prächter aus philosophisch-dogmatischen Gründen auf eine frühe, d. h. vor der Übersiedlung des Simplikios nach Athen gelegene Entstehungszeit des Epiktetkommentars schließt, besteht meines Erachtens kein Grund, da keineswegs wichtige Differenzen zwischen dem Neuplatonismus des Epiktetkommentars und dem der athenischen Schule bestehen. Im Gegenteil, stellenweise ist ein starker Einfluss des Proklos nachzuweisen. Aus der Bemerkung des Simplikios, dass ihm die Gelegenheit, Epiktet zu kommentieren, unter den gegenwärtigen Zeitumständen sehr willkommen gewesen sei, glaube ich eher auf eine nach dem Edikt Justinians gelegene Entstehungszeit schließen zu dürfen. Eine Begegnung mit manichäischen Lehren im asiatischen Bereich und deren Aufnahme in den Kommentar lagen somit immerhin im Bereich des Möglichen. Das Anliegen des vorliegenden Aufsatzes ist es daher, diese teilweise aus den textlichen Veränderungen noch deutlicher hervortretenden Probleme, auf die ich im Zusammenhang mit den Arbeiten zu einer Neuausgabe des Epiktetkommentars gestoßen bin, wieder einmal aufzuwerfen und, wenn möglich, dem Interesse der Fachleute dieses so schwierigen Gebietes zu empfehlen. [conclusion p. 56-57] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/YbXwCc1R01MthxV |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1131","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1131,"authors_free":[{"id":1706,"entry_id":1131,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Die Widerlegung des Manich\u00e4ismus im Epiktetkommentar des Simplikios","main_title":{"title":"Die Widerlegung des Manich\u00e4ismus im Epiktetkommentar des Simplikios"},"abstract":"Wir haben gesehen, dass Simplikios seiner kurzen Abhandlung \u00fcber den Manich\u00e4ismus einen durchaus kunstvollen Aufbau zu geben wusste. Obwohl sie in den gro\u00dfen Zusammenhang seines Epiktetkommentars eingebaut ist, bildet sie doch in sich ein abgerundetes Ganzes. Was die Art seiner Argumentation betrifft, so findet sich in ihr wohl kaum ein Gedanke, der sich nicht schon so oder \u00e4hnlich bei Alexander von Lykopolis, Titus von Bostra, Epiphanios oder Augustinus ausgedr\u00fcckt f\u00e4nde. Das soll nat\u00fcrlich nicht unbedingt hei\u00dfen, dass Simplikios einen von diesen Schriftstellern direkt benutzt h\u00e4tte; vielmehr ist damit zu rechnen, dass sich sehr bald ein festes Schema antimanich\u00e4ischer Polemik herausgebildet hatte \u2013 etwa so, wie es in hellenistischer Zeit bestimmte Argumentationsschemata gab, die zum Gemeingut der philosophischen Widerlegung von Epikureern und Stoikern geworden waren.\r\n\r\nBesondere Aufmerksamkeit verdient die kleine Abhandlung des Simplikios eher dadurch, dass sie Anspielungen auf Lehren der Manich\u00e4er enth\u00e4lt, deren Hintergrund, soweit ich sehe, bis heute nicht gen\u00fcgend erhellt ist. In welcher Umgebung hat man den manich\u00e4ischen Weisen zu suchen, dem Simplikios seine Information \u00fcber die manich\u00e4ische Kosmogonie verdankt? Stammte diese Bekanntschaft aus der Zeit seiner Studien in Alexandrien, oder hatte Simplikios mit dem Manich\u00e4er anl\u00e4sslich seines Aufenthaltes in Persien bei dem philosophisch interessierten K\u00f6nig Chosrau sprechen k\u00f6nnen, der ja f\u00fcr seine Diskussionsveranstaltungen \u2013 unter anderem \u00fcber die Frage, ob man ein oder zwei Prinzipien aller Dinge anzunehmen habe \u2013 bekannt war?\r\n\r\nWie Pr\u00e4chter aus philosophisch-dogmatischen Gr\u00fcnden auf eine fr\u00fche, d. h. vor der \u00dcbersiedlung des Simplikios nach Athen gelegene Entstehungszeit des Epiktetkommentars schlie\u00dft, besteht meines Erachtens kein Grund, da keineswegs wichtige Differenzen zwischen dem Neuplatonismus des Epiktetkommentars und dem der athenischen Schule bestehen. Im Gegenteil, stellenweise ist ein starker Einfluss des Proklos nachzuweisen. Aus der Bemerkung des Simplikios, dass ihm die Gelegenheit, Epiktet zu kommentieren, unter den gegenw\u00e4rtigen Zeitumst\u00e4nden sehr willkommen gewesen sei, glaube ich eher auf eine nach dem Edikt Justinians gelegene Entstehungszeit schlie\u00dfen zu d\u00fcrfen. Eine Begegnung mit manich\u00e4ischen Lehren im asiatischen Bereich und deren Aufnahme in den Kommentar lagen somit immerhin im Bereich des M\u00f6glichen.\r\n\r\nDas Anliegen des vorliegenden Aufsatzes ist es daher, diese teilweise aus den textlichen Ver\u00e4nderungen noch deutlicher hervortretenden Probleme, auf die ich im Zusammenhang mit den Arbeiten zu einer Neuausgabe des Epiktetkommentars gesto\u00dfen bin, wieder einmal aufzuwerfen und, wenn m\u00f6glich, dem Interesse der Fachleute dieses so schwierigen Gebietes zu empfehlen. [conclusion p. 56-57]","btype":3,"date":"1969","language":"German","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/YbXwCc1R01MthxV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1131,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie","volume":"51","issue":"1","pages":"31-57"}},"sort":["Die Widerlegung des Manich\u00e4ismus im Epiktetkommentar des Simplikios"]}
| Title | La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'Épictète. Addenda et Corrigenda |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1983 |
| Journal | Revue d'histoire des textes |
| Volume | 11 |
| Pages | 387-395 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
The present study, as the title indicates, brings some supplementary information and minor corrections to my article on La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le « Manuel » d'Épictète, which appeared in volume VIII (1978) if the Revue d'Histoire des Textes (pp. 1-108). As part of these addenda, I have identified two new Greek texts, contained in the Neapolitans III. B. 12 : one fragment of Aristotle's Metaphysics, and another fragment of the commentary by Simplicius on Aristotle's De caelo ; each of these fragments is the length of a quaternion. [author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/IyOsWDpihx7t4Q1 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1496","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1496,"authors_free":[{"id":2596,"entry_id":1496,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te. Addenda et Corrigenda","main_title":{"title":"La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te. Addenda et Corrigenda"},"abstract":"The present study, as the title indicates, brings some supplementary information and minor corrections to my article on La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le \u00ab Manuel \u00bb d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te, which appeared in volume VIII (1978) if\r\nthe Revue d'Histoire des Textes (pp. 1-108). As part of these addenda, I have identified two new Greek texts, contained in the Neapolitans III. B. 12 : one fragment of Aristotle's Metaphysics, and another fragment of the commentary by Simplicius on Aristotle's De caelo ; each of these fragments is the length of a quaternion. [author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1983","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/IyOsWDpihx7t4Q1","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1496,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue d'histoire des textes","volume":"11","issue":"","pages":"387-395"}},"sort":["La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d'\u00c9pict\u00e8te. Addenda et Corrigenda"]}
| Title | Le commentaire philosophique continu dans l’Antiquité |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 1997 |
| Journal | AnTard (Antiquité Tardive. Revue internationale d’histoire et d’archéolog) |
| Volume | 5 |
| Pages | 169–176 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Opening with an overview of the historical development of the continuous philosophical commentary, this study aims to bring out the profound differences between modem philosophicalcommentaries and the Late Antique commentaries on Plato and Aristotle. The modem commentariesare concerned to explain the texts for an audience which is not defined. By contrast, the ancient commentaries belonged to a precise programme of reading the texts concerned, a programme which corresponded both to levels of knowledge and levels of spiritual progression. They were therefore addressed, depending on the type of text, to beginners, to intermediate or to very advanced students; and their content and method varied greatly according to the level of the intended readership. Furthermore, explaining the text was never an end in itself; the commentary was intended not so much to expand knowledge as to assist in the acquisition of a particular ethical attitude, leading to a particular way of life. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/bNInszbNd3YEzTp |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"695","_score":null,"_source":{"id":695,"authors_free":[{"id":1034,"entry_id":695,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Le commentaire philosophique continu dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9","main_title":{"title":"Le commentaire philosophique continu dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9"},"abstract":"Opening with an overview of the historical development of the continuous philosophical commentary, this study aims to bring out the profound differences between modem philosophicalcommentaries and the Late Antique commentaries on Plato and Aristotle. The modem commentariesare concerned to explain the texts for an audience which is not defined. By contrast, the ancient commentaries belonged to a precise programme of reading the texts concerned, a programme which corresponded both to levels of knowledge and levels of spiritual progression. They were therefore addressed, depending on the type of text, to beginners, to intermediate or to very advanced students; and their content and method varied greatly according to the level of the intended readership. Furthermore, explaining the text was never an end in itself; the commentary was intended not so much to expand knowledge as to assist in the acquisition of a particular ethical attitude, leading to a particular way of life. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/bNInszbNd3YEzTp","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":695,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"AnTard (Antiquit\u00e9 Tardive. Revue internationale d\u2019histoire et d\u2019arch\u00e9olog)","volume":"5","issue":"","pages":"169\u2013176"}},"sort":["Le commentaire philosophique continu dans l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9"]}
| Title | Remarque complémentaire à mon article “Dans quel lieu le néoplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fondé son école de mathémathiques, et où a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manichéen?” |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2007 |
| Journal | The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition |
| Volume | 1 |
| Pages | 263-269 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
Concerning the book by R. Arnzen Abū l-‘Abbās an-Nayrīzīs Exzerpte aus (Ps.-?) Simplicius’ Kommentar zu den Definitionen, Postulaten und Axiomen in Euclids Elementa I, the present paper off ers a survey of the way the late Neoplatonists used to conceive and compose their commentaries. Far from trying to be original, each commentary is largely based on the works of predecessors. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/MJR57V7OQzq7spB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1179","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1179,"authors_free":[{"id":1753,"entry_id":1179,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Remarque compl\u00e9mentaire \u00e0 mon article \u201cDans quel lieu le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fond\u00e9 son \u00e9cole de math\u00e9mathiques, et o\u00f9 a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manich\u00e9en?\u201d","main_title":{"title":"Remarque compl\u00e9mentaire \u00e0 mon article \u201cDans quel lieu le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fond\u00e9 son \u00e9cole de math\u00e9mathiques, et o\u00f9 a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manich\u00e9en?\u201d"},"abstract":"Concerning the book by R. Arnzen Ab\u016b l-\u2018Abb\u0101s an-Nayr\u012bz\u012bs Exzerpte aus (Ps.-?) Simplicius\u2019 Kommentar zu den Definitionen, Postulaten und Axiomen in Euclids Elementa I, the present paper off ers a survey of the way the late Neoplatonists used to conceive and compose their commentaries. Far from trying to be original, each commentary is largely based on the works of predecessors. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2007","language":"French","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/MJR57V7OQzq7spB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1179,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition","volume":"1","issue":"","pages":"263-269"}},"sort":["Remarque compl\u00e9mentaire \u00e0 mon article \u201cDans quel lieu le n\u00e9oplatonicien Simplicius a-t-il fond\u00e9 son \u00e9cole de math\u00e9mathiques, et o\u00f9 a pu avoir lieu son entretien avec un manich\u00e9en?\u201d"]}
| Title | Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle's "De Anima" (CAG XI) : A Methodological Study |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2002 |
| Journal | Mnemosyne, Fourth Series |
| Volume | 55 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 159–199 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
This article represents a new contribution to the author's debate with C. Steel as to the authenticity of the Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima, attributed by the manuscripts to the 6th-century A.D. Neoplatonist philosopher Simplicius. On the basis of what he claims are stylistic and doctrinal differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries, Steel has argued that the In DA cannot be by Simplicius, but is instead to be attributed to his contemporary Priscian of Lydia. In the present article, it is argued (1) that the alleged stylistic differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries can be explained by other considerations: in particular, the vocabulary and style of the Neoplatonist commentators is largely determined by the text commented upon, as well as the level of studies of the audience for whom each commentary is intended. (2) The alleged doctrinal differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other com- mentaries simply do not exist. Careful examination of Steel's arguments shows that they suffer from serious methodological flaws, including the failure to take into consideration Simplicius' Commentary on the Manual of Epictetus, and the ambiguity of Neoplatonic philosophical terminology. It is concluded that in the whole of Steel's argumentation, there is not one decisive argument which would allow us to conclude that the commentary on the De Anima, attributed by direct and indirect tradition to Simplicius, is inauthentic. [Author's abstract] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/BFVk6vhtz2ul08p |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"692","_score":null,"_source":{"id":692,"authors_free":[{"id":1030,"entry_id":692,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle's \"De Anima\" (CAG XI) : A Methodological Study","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle's \"De Anima\" (CAG XI) : A Methodological Study"},"abstract":"This article represents a new contribution to the author's debate with C. Steel as to the authenticity of the Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima, attributed by the manuscripts to the 6th-century A.D. Neoplatonist philosopher Simplicius. On the basis of what he claims are stylistic and doctrinal differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries, Steel has argued that the In DA cannot be by Simplicius, but is instead to be attributed to his contemporary Priscian of Lydia. In the present article, it is argued (1) that the alleged stylistic differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other commentaries can be explained by other considerations: in particular, the vocabulary and style of the Neoplatonist commentators is largely determined by the text commented upon, as well as the level of studies of the audience for whom each commentary is intended. (2) The alleged doctrinal differences between the In DA and Simplicius' other com- mentaries simply do not exist. Careful examination of Steel's arguments shows that they suffer from serious methodological flaws, including the failure to take into consideration Simplicius' Commentary on the Manual of Epictetus, and the ambiguity of Neoplatonic philosophical terminology. It is concluded that in the whole of Steel's argumentation, there is not one decisive argument which would allow us to conclude that the commentary on the De Anima, attributed by direct and indirect tradition to Simplicius, is inauthentic. [Author's abstract]","btype":3,"date":"2002","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/BFVk6vhtz2ul08p","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":692,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mnemosyne, Fourth Series","volume":"55","issue":"2","pages":"159\u2013199"}},"sort":["Simplicius or Priscianus? On the Author of the Commentary on Aristotle's \"De Anima\" (CAG XI) : A Methodological Study"]}
| Title | Simplicius, in Cat., p. 1,3-3,17 Kalbfleisch: An Important Contribution to the History of the Ancient |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2004 |
| Journal | Rheinisches Museum für Philologie |
| Volume | 147 |
| Issue | 3/4 |
| Pages | 408-420 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Hadot, Ilsetraut |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
In the first place, the survey of the commentaries on the Categories with which Simplicius provides us, as well as the examination undertaken by J. M. Dillon of the fragments of Iamblichus’ commentaries on Plato’s dialogues, show as clearly as possible that the form of the continuous commentary was utilized by the Neoplatonists right from the start, and that it therefore was not introduced by Syrianus. Secondly, an attentive comparison between those Neoplatonic commentaries on the Categories that have come down to us proves that a genuine doctrinal continuity existed from Porphyry to Simplicius. In addition, I consider it likely that an analogous continuity with regard to the tendency to harmonize the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle also existed in the Neoplatonic commentaries on the Metaphysics, of which only that of Syrianus (partial), and that of Asclepius-Ammonius (partial) have come down to us, whereas those of Porphyry and Iamblichus are lost, but attested, and that Syrianus’ attitude, which he manifests in the introduction to his commentary on book My the Metaphysics, is therefore no more original than his use of the form of the continuous commentary. In conclusion, Syrianus was certainly a great philosopher, but, as far as the precise points dealt with in this article are concerned, he was not the innovator he has been made out to be. [conclusion, p. 419-420] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/iOqb6gj8D2LqZxB |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"638","_score":null,"_source":{"id":638,"authors_free":[{"id":904,"entry_id":638,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":4,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","free_first_name":"Ilsetraut","free_last_name":"Hadot","norm_person":{"id":4,"first_name":"Ilsetraut","last_name":"Hadot","full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/107415011","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Simplicius, in Cat., p. 1,3-3,17 Kalbfleisch: An Important Contribution to the History of the Ancient","main_title":{"title":"Simplicius, in Cat., p. 1,3-3,17 Kalbfleisch: An Important Contribution to the History of the Ancient"},"abstract":"In the first place, the survey of the commentaries on the Categories with which Simplicius provides us, as well as the examination undertaken by J. M. Dillon of the fragments of Iamblichus\u2019 commentaries on Plato\u2019s dialogues, show as clearly as possible that the form of the continuous commentary was utilized by the Neoplatonists right from the start, and that it therefore was not introduced by Syrianus. Secondly, an attentive comparison between those Neoplatonic commentaries on the Categories that have come down to us proves that a genuine doctrinal continuity existed from Porphyry to Simplicius. In addition, I consider it likely that an analogous continuity with regard to the tendency to harmonize the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle also existed in the Neoplatonic commentaries on the Metaphysics, of which only that of Syrianus (partial), and that of Asclepius-Ammonius (partial) have come down to us, whereas those of Porphyry and Iamblichus are lost, but attested, and that Syrianus\u2019 attitude, which he manifests in the introduction to his commentary on book My the Metaphysics, is therefore no more original than his use of the form of the continuous commentary. In conclusion, Syrianus was certainly a great philosopher, but, as far as the precise points dealt with in this article are concerned, he was not the innovator he has been made out to be. [conclusion, p. 419-420]","btype":3,"date":"2004","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/iOqb6gj8D2LqZxB","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":4,"full_name":"Hadot, Ilsetraut","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":638,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Rheinisches Museum f\u00fcr Philologie","volume":"147","issue":"3\/4","pages":"408-420"}},"sort":["Simplicius, in Cat., p. 1,3-3,17 Kalbfleisch: An Important Contribution to the History of the Ancient"]}