| Title | “Reputable Opinions” (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography? |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World |
| Pages | 151-174 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
| Editor(s) | Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike |
| Translator(s) |
| [Introduction, p. 8-9: Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius are at the centre of Han Baltussen’s paper in this volume. Starting with Aristotle’s use of earlier opinions and the methodical framework provided by the Topics, Baltussen considers different kinds of collections of doxai (or perhaps of endoxa, which in Aristotle may turn some doxographies rather into “endoxographies”). He argues that a distinction between doxography and endoxography may clarify several aspects regarding the development of the long tradition of doxaidiscussions, inasmuch as it helps to gain insight into the origin of doxography itself and its relation to the early Peripatetic habit of evaluating earlier opinions, i.e. of “applied dialectics.” Seen in this light, Simplicius’ way of reading Aristotle can also be analysed within the framework of his commentaries to elucidate his philosophical agenda and his version of the endoxographical method]. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/O7CkQ7ov1PzjUz2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1522","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1522,"authors_free":[{"id":2643,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2644,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2645,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u201cReputable Opinions\u201d (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?","main_title":{"title":"\u201cReputable Opinions\u201d (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?"},"abstract":"[Introduction, p. 8-9: Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius are at the centre of Han Baltussen\u2019s paper in this volume. Starting with Aristotle\u2019s use of earlier opinions\r\nand the methodical framework provided by the Topics, Baltussen considers different kinds of collections of doxai (or perhaps of endoxa, which\r\nin Aristotle may turn some doxographies rather into \u201cendoxographies\u201d). He argues that a distinction between doxography and endoxography may clarify several aspects regarding the development of the long tradition of doxaidiscussions, inasmuch as it helps to gain insight into the origin of doxography\r\nitself and its relation to the early Peripatetic habit of evaluating earlier opinions, i.e. of \u201capplied dialectics.\u201d Seen in this light, Simplicius\u2019 way of reading Aristotle can also be analysed within the framework of his commentaries to elucidate his philosophical agenda and his version of the endoxographical method].","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O7CkQ7ov1PzjUz2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1522,"section_of":1521,"pages":"151-174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1521,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Lammer-Jas_2022","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume\u2014the proceedings of a 2018 conference at LMU Munich funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation\u2014brings together, for the first time, experts on Greek, Syriac, and Arabic traditions of doxography. Fourteen contributions provide new insight into state-of-the-art contemporary research on the widespread phenomenon of doxography. Together, they demonstrate how Greek, Syriac, and Arabic forms of doxography share common features and raise related questions that benefit interdisciplinary exchange among colleagues from various disciplines, such as classics, Arabic studies, and the history of philosophy. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XdQoRcGvPjnpUca","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
| Title | Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato’s Parmenides to Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World |
| Pages | 175-206 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Helmig, Christoph |
| Editor(s) | Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike |
| Translator(s) |
| The aim of my paper was to contrast ancient doxographical approaches towards the Presocratic Parmenides of Elea and to shed some light on the peculiarities of the ancient exegetical tradition in the form of a case study. As a rule, ancient and late ancient interpreters seem to pursue a much more selective approach compared to modern scholars. In the ancient reception of Parmenides’ poem, we are able to distinguish several branches. What binds them together is the prominent focus on the thesis that Being is One, first formulated explicitly in Plato. I have suggested above to differentiate readers of Parmenides according to their attitude towards the Presocratic philosopher. Here, the two antipodes, as it were, are Plato and Aristotle. Plato aimed at further developing Eleatic conceptions of being in a creative way and prefigured a Platonizing account of Parmenides’ poem. An explicit Platonizing reading of Parmenides can be traced back to the Middle Platonist Plutarch of Chaeronea and was taken up by several Neoplatonists such as Plotinus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius. For both Plato and the Platonic tradition, Parmenides was an authoritative figure. Notwithstanding this continuity in attitude, a notable shift from Plato to the Platonic tradition can be observed. While Plato, as we have said, tried to elaborate on specific key terms of Parmenides’ philosophy such as being, non-being, knowledge, etc., Platonists rather tried to bring Parmenides’ philosophy in agreement with that of Plato, or rather, with what they considered the philosophy of Plato. Aristotle, on the other hand, who is followed by Alexander of Aphrodisias, was eager to challenge Parmenides’ account of being and to prove him wrong. Although several attempts have been made to read Aristotle’s account in Physics I.2–3 in a more constructive way, it is doubtful whether they are successful. He just does not seem to be very coherent when it comes to presenting Parmenides’ doctrines. Rather, his strategy is essentially polemical. In several respects, Simplicius obtains a special role in the history of the reading of Parmenides and hence in the doxographical tradition. He is a rather peculiar kind of doxographer, a doxographer that serves a much broader agenda than just making sense of Parmenides’ philosophy or simply preserving the views of an author. It seems to be a kind of context- or genre-dependent, polyphonic, multilevel doxography that has the capacity to integrate other authors or commentators in order to demonstrate the essential unity (symphônia) of ancient Hellenic wisdom. Commenting on Aristotle’s Physics, Simplicius definitely did more than he had to, for he brings in much more material, especially from Parmenides’ poem and Plato’s dialogues, than he found in Aristotle or what is needed to comment on Aristotle. As a doxographer, he is eager to interpret, harmonize, and preserve. Simplicius’ art of doxography is, I would suggest, not primarily devised to understand an author better, but to promote a certain reading of a text or an author in a well-defined ideological manner. In our case, the guiding principles of Simplicius are the harmony of Plato and Aristotle and the unity of the Greek philosophical tradition. Ivan Adriano Licciardi, contrasting Aristotle and Simplicius, aptly attributes to Aristotle a storiografia dialettica, while Simplicius champions a storiografia sinfonica. The context in which the doxa of a certain author are transmitted is also quite crucial. In the case of Parmenides, we do not know of any running commentary written in Antiquity. It is important to emphasize that Simplicius too, although he is quoting a good bit from the poem firsthand, does not comment on it line by line as he does in the case of Aristotle. Rather, he is clever enough to select certain words or phrases and interpret them according to his guidelines. As we have seen, it is significant that Simplicius discusses Parmenides’ philosophy in the context of Aristotle’s criticism and against the background of Plato’s exegesis, first and foremost in the Sophist. It is certainly this context or genre that clearly influences the way Parmenides is interpreted. As far as the whole Platonic tradition is concerned, it seems safer not to talk of the reception of Parmenides, but of the reception of Plato’s version of Parmenides. [conclusion p. 200-202] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Qox4YDBhtebTWK3 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1520","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1520,"authors_free":[{"id":2638,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":146,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Helmig, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Helmig","norm_person":{"id":146,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Helmig","full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1107028760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2641,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2642,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato\u2019s Parmenides to Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato\u2019s Parmenides to Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"The aim of my paper was to contrast ancient doxographical approaches towards the Presocratic Parmenides of Elea and to shed some light on the peculiarities of the ancient exegetical tradition in the form of a case study. As a rule, ancient and late ancient interpreters seem to pursue a much more selective approach compared to modern scholars. In the ancient reception of Parmenides\u2019 poem, we are able to distinguish several branches. What binds them together is the prominent focus on the thesis that Being is One, first formulated explicitly in Plato. I have suggested above to differentiate readers of Parmenides according to their attitude towards the Presocratic philosopher. Here, the two antipodes, as it were, are Plato and Aristotle.\r\n\r\nPlato aimed at further developing Eleatic conceptions of being in a creative way and prefigured a Platonizing account of Parmenides\u2019 poem. An explicit Platonizing reading of Parmenides can be traced back to the Middle Platonist Plutarch of Chaeronea and was taken up by several Neoplatonists such as Plotinus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius. For both Plato and the Platonic tradition, Parmenides was an authoritative figure. Notwithstanding this continuity in attitude, a notable shift from Plato to the Platonic tradition can be observed. While Plato, as we have said, tried to elaborate on specific key terms of Parmenides\u2019 philosophy such as being, non-being, knowledge, etc., Platonists rather tried to bring Parmenides\u2019 philosophy in agreement with that of Plato, or rather, with what they considered the philosophy of Plato.\r\n\r\nAristotle, on the other hand, who is followed by Alexander of Aphrodisias, was eager to challenge Parmenides\u2019 account of being and to prove him wrong. Although several attempts have been made to read Aristotle\u2019s account in Physics I.2\u20133 in a more constructive way, it is doubtful whether they are successful. He just does not seem to be very coherent when it comes to presenting Parmenides\u2019 doctrines. Rather, his strategy is essentially polemical.\r\n\r\nIn several respects, Simplicius obtains a special role in the history of the reading of Parmenides and hence in the doxographical tradition. He is a rather peculiar kind of doxographer, a doxographer that serves a much broader agenda than just making sense of Parmenides\u2019 philosophy or simply preserving the views of an author. It seems to be a kind of context- or genre-dependent, polyphonic, multilevel doxography that has the capacity to integrate other authors or commentators in order to demonstrate the essential unity (symph\u00f4nia) of ancient Hellenic wisdom. Commenting on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, Simplicius definitely did more than he had to, for he brings in much more material, especially from Parmenides\u2019 poem and Plato\u2019s dialogues, than he found in Aristotle or what is needed to comment on Aristotle. As a doxographer, he is eager to interpret, harmonize, and preserve.\r\n\r\nSimplicius\u2019 art of doxography is, I would suggest, not primarily devised to understand an author better, but to promote a certain reading of a text or an author in a well-defined ideological manner. In our case, the guiding principles of Simplicius are the harmony of Plato and Aristotle and the unity of the Greek philosophical tradition. Ivan Adriano Licciardi, contrasting Aristotle and Simplicius, aptly attributes to Aristotle a storiografia dialettica, while Simplicius champions a storiografia sinfonica.\r\n\r\nThe context in which the doxa of a certain author are transmitted is also quite crucial. In the case of Parmenides, we do not know of any running commentary written in Antiquity. It is important to emphasize that Simplicius too, although he is quoting a good bit from the poem firsthand, does not comment on it line by line as he does in the case of Aristotle. Rather, he is clever enough to select certain words or phrases and interpret them according to his guidelines. As we have seen, it is significant that Simplicius discusses Parmenides\u2019 philosophy in the context of Aristotle\u2019s criticism and against the background of Plato\u2019s exegesis, first and foremost in the Sophist. It is certainly this context or genre that clearly influences the way Parmenides is interpreted. As far as the whole Platonic tradition is concerned, it seems safer not to talk of the reception of Parmenides, but of the reception of Plato\u2019s version of Parmenides.\r\n[conclusion p. 200-202]","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Qox4YDBhtebTWK3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":146,"full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1520,"section_of":1521,"pages":"175-206","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1521,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Lammer-Jas_2022","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume\u2014the proceedings of a 2018 conference at LMU Munich funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation\u2014brings together, for the first time, experts on Greek, Syriac, and Arabic traditions of doxography. Fourteen contributions provide new insight into state-of-the-art contemporary research on the widespread phenomenon of doxography. Together, they demonstrate how Greek, Syriac, and Arabic forms of doxography share common features and raise related questions that benefit interdisciplinary exchange among colleagues from various disciplines, such as classics, Arabic studies, and the history of philosophy. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XdQoRcGvPjnpUca","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
| Title | Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Publication Place | Leiden – Boston |
| Publisher | Brill |
| Series | Philosophia Antiqua |
| Volume | 160 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike |
| Translator(s) |
| Aristotle is famous for beginning his discussions of particular problems with earlier views (doxai) on the subject at hand, whether in physics (Phys. I.2–6), biology (Hist. anim. III.2–3; De respir. 1–9), psychology (De an. I.2–4), metaphysics (Met. Α.1–10), or astronomy (Cael. I.1; 10–12). Part of the procedure is, as he often puts it, to “go over or rehearse the puzzles” (diaporêsai). Ever since Hermann Diels tried to collect and reconstruct the doctrines of the Presocratics, Aristotle’s discussions (and those of his collaborator and immediate successor Theophrastus) became associated with the wider pathways of transmission of early Greek philosophy. Subsequently, Diels’ work emphasized Theophrastus’ role as the origin for this network of interconnected texts. Diels’ two pioneering works resulting from these investigations, his Doxographi Graeci (mapping and clarifying the various streams of transmission) and his Vorsokratiker (an authoritative collection of the fragments and testimonia), have both dominated the twentieth-century study of early Greek thought. In this chapter, I aim to revisit how we should characterize Aristotle’s habit of examining such “received opinions” and how influential it was on his successors, in particular Theophrastus. The nature of these discussions is, I submit, in need of a more precise characterization. For added perspective on the larger timeframe and the continuity in the Aristotelian tradition, I will include comments on the late Platonist Simplicius (ca. 480–ca. 540 CE), who not only still had access to Theophrastus and several works of Aristotle but also seems to echo aspects of the doxai-discussions in his commentaries on Aristotle, with certain important adjustments. By defining “received opinions” in the sense of “accepted” as well as “transmitted,” we are in a position to distinguish between different kinds of doxai-collections, depending on the context and the questions we ask about the material. In Greek, “received opinions” relates closely to endoxa, which I shall also clarify. The overall aim is to gain more insight into the role of these endoxa in the Aristotelian tradition as well as characterize the method(s) used to frame a scientific discussion with “historical” depth. This three-step analysis aims to offer an answer to the question implied in my title: is Diels’ label accurate for the method used by Aristotle and his successor, or should we consider an alternative description? I have introduced the term “endoxography” in my title in an attempt to coin a phrase that describes more accurately certain types of doxai-collections in contradistinction to Diels’ notion of doxography and its modern use, which seems to have become wider in scope. In my study of Theophrastus’ work, I came up with the phrase “critical endoxography” a long time ago. It was meant to characterize the dialectical argument forms in Theophrastus’ De sensibus as a way of specifying how these “well-known views” (endoxa) received critical attention from both Aristotle and Theophrastus. My focus on the terms doxography and endoxography in the earlier part of this paper is not just an exercise in semantics, but one that concerns the very nature of Aristotle’s activity and how it impacted his successor and later commentators. Diels’ modern term may be more or less appropriate for this wider and later tradition of doxai transmission, but it hardly describes the early Peripatetic habit of retrospective evaluation of previous views related to specific investigations into problems of particular knowledge domains. [introduction p. 151-152] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Gzd2QU7XGDORXfc |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1521","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1521,"authors_free":[{"id":2639,"entry_id":1521,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2640,"entry_id":1521,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","main_title":{"title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World"},"abstract":"Aristotle is famous for beginning his discussions of particular problems with earlier views (doxai) on the subject at hand, whether in physics (Phys. I.2\u20136), biology (Hist. anim. III.2\u20133; De respir. 1\u20139), psychology (De an. I.2\u20134), metaphysics (Met. \u0391.1\u201310), or astronomy (Cael. I.1; 10\u201312). Part of the procedure is, as he often puts it, to \u201cgo over or rehearse the puzzles\u201d (diapor\u00easai).\r\n\r\nEver since Hermann Diels tried to collect and reconstruct the doctrines of the Presocratics, Aristotle\u2019s discussions (and those of his collaborator and immediate successor Theophrastus) became associated with the wider pathways of transmission of early Greek philosophy. Subsequently, Diels\u2019 work emphasized Theophrastus\u2019 role as the origin for this network of interconnected texts. Diels\u2019 two pioneering works resulting from these investigations, his Doxographi Graeci (mapping and clarifying the various streams of transmission) and his Vorsokratiker (an authoritative collection of the fragments and testimonia), have both dominated the twentieth-century study of early Greek thought.\r\n\r\nIn this chapter, I aim to revisit how we should characterize Aristotle\u2019s habit of examining such \u201creceived opinions\u201d and how influential it was on his successors, in particular Theophrastus. The nature of these discussions is, I submit, in need of a more precise characterization. For added perspective on the larger timeframe and the continuity in the Aristotelian tradition, I will include comments on the late Platonist Simplicius (ca. 480\u2013ca. 540 CE), who not only still had access to Theophrastus and several works of Aristotle but also seems to echo aspects of the doxai-discussions in his commentaries on Aristotle, with certain important adjustments.\r\n\r\nBy defining \u201creceived opinions\u201d in the sense of \u201caccepted\u201d as well as \u201ctransmitted,\u201d we are in a position to distinguish between different kinds of doxai-collections, depending on the context and the questions we ask about the material. In Greek, \u201creceived opinions\u201d relates closely to endoxa, which I shall also clarify. The overall aim is to gain more insight into the role of these endoxa in the Aristotelian tradition as well as characterize the method(s) used to frame a scientific discussion with \u201chistorical\u201d depth.\r\n\r\nThis three-step analysis aims to offer an answer to the question implied in my title: is Diels\u2019 label accurate for the method used by Aristotle and his successor, or should we consider an alternative description? I have introduced the term \u201cendoxography\u201d in my title in an attempt to coin a phrase that describes more accurately certain types of doxai-collections in contradistinction to Diels\u2019 notion of doxography and its modern use, which seems to have become wider in scope.\r\n\r\nIn my study of Theophrastus\u2019 work, I came up with the phrase \u201ccritical endoxography\u201d a long time ago. It was meant to characterize the dialectical argument forms in Theophrastus\u2019 De sensibus as a way of specifying how these \u201cwell-known views\u201d (endoxa) received critical attention from both Aristotle and Theophrastus. My focus on the terms doxography and endoxography in the earlier part of this paper is not just an exercise in semantics, but one that concerns the very nature of Aristotle\u2019s activity and how it impacted his successor and later commentators.\r\n\r\nDiels\u2019 modern term may be more or less appropriate for this wider and later tradition of doxai transmission, but it hardly describes the early Peripatetic habit of retrospective evaluation of previous views related to specific investigations into problems of particular knowledge domains. [introduction p. 151-152]","btype":4,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Gzd2QU7XGDORXfc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":[2022]}
| Title | Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato’s Parmenides to Simplicius’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World |
| Pages | 175-206 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Helmig, Christoph |
| Editor(s) | Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike |
| Translator(s) |
The aim of my paper was to contrast ancient doxographical approaches towards the Presocratic Parmenides of Elea and to shed some light on the peculiarities of the ancient exegetical tradition in the form of a case study. As a rule, ancient and late ancient interpreters seem to pursue a much more selective approach compared to modern scholars. In the ancient reception of Parmenides’ poem, we are able to distinguish several branches. What binds them together is the prominent focus on the thesis that Being is One, first formulated explicitly in Plato. I have suggested above to differentiate readers of Parmenides according to their attitude towards the Presocratic philosopher. Here, the two antipodes, as it were, are Plato and Aristotle. Plato aimed at further developing Eleatic conceptions of being in a creative way and prefigured a Platonizing account of Parmenides’ poem. An explicit Platonizing reading of Parmenides can be traced back to the Middle Platonist Plutarch of Chaeronea and was taken up by several Neoplatonists such as Plotinus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius. For both Plato and the Platonic tradition, Parmenides was an authoritative figure. Notwithstanding this continuity in attitude, a notable shift from Plato to the Platonic tradition can be observed. While Plato, as we have said, tried to elaborate on specific key terms of Parmenides’ philosophy such as being, non-being, knowledge, etc., Platonists rather tried to bring Parmenides’ philosophy in agreement with that of Plato, or rather, with what they considered the philosophy of Plato. Aristotle, on the other hand, who is followed by Alexander of Aphrodisias, was eager to challenge Parmenides’ account of being and to prove him wrong. Although several attempts have been made to read Aristotle’s account in Physics I.2–3 in a more constructive way, it is doubtful whether they are successful. He just does not seem to be very coherent when it comes to presenting Parmenides’ doctrines. Rather, his strategy is essentially polemical. In several respects, Simplicius obtains a special role in the history of the reading of Parmenides and hence in the doxographical tradition. He is a rather peculiar kind of doxographer, a doxographer that serves a much broader agenda than just making sense of Parmenides’ philosophy or simply preserving the views of an author. It seems to be a kind of context- or genre-dependent, polyphonic, multilevel doxography that has the capacity to integrate other authors or commentators in order to demonstrate the essential unity (symphônia) of ancient Hellenic wisdom. Commenting on Aristotle’s Physics, Simplicius definitely did more than he had to, for he brings in much more material, especially from Parmenides’ poem and Plato’s dialogues, than he found in Aristotle or what is needed to comment on Aristotle. As a doxographer, he is eager to interpret, harmonize, and preserve. Simplicius’ art of doxography is, I would suggest, not primarily devised to understand an author better, but to promote a certain reading of a text or an author in a well-defined ideological manner. In our case, the guiding principles of Simplicius are the harmony of Plato and Aristotle and the unity of the Greek philosophical tradition. Ivan Adriano Licciardi, contrasting Aristotle and Simplicius, aptly attributes to Aristotle a storiografia dialettica, while Simplicius champions a storiografia sinfonica. The context in which the doxa of a certain author are transmitted is also quite crucial. In the case of Parmenides, we do not know of any running commentary written in Antiquity. It is important to emphasize that Simplicius too, although he is quoting a good bit from the poem firsthand, does not comment on it line by line as he does in the case of Aristotle. Rather, he is clever enough to select certain words or phrases and interpret them according to his guidelines. As we have seen, it is significant that Simplicius discusses Parmenides’ philosophy in the context of Aristotle’s criticism and against the background of Plato’s exegesis, first and foremost in the Sophist. It is certainly this context or genre that clearly influences the way Parmenides is interpreted. As far as the whole Platonic tradition is concerned, it seems safer not to talk of the reception of Parmenides, but of the reception of Plato’s version of Parmenides. [conclusion p. 200-202] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Qox4YDBhtebTWK3 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1520","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1520,"authors_free":[{"id":2638,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":146,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Helmig, Christoph","free_first_name":"Christoph","free_last_name":"Helmig","norm_person":{"id":146,"first_name":"Christoph","last_name":"Helmig","full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1107028760","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2641,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2642,"entry_id":1520,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato\u2019s Parmenides to Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics","main_title":{"title":"Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato\u2019s Parmenides to Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics"},"abstract":"The aim of my paper was to contrast ancient doxographical approaches towards the Presocratic Parmenides of Elea and to shed some light on the peculiarities of the ancient exegetical tradition in the form of a case study. As a rule, ancient and late ancient interpreters seem to pursue a much more selective approach compared to modern scholars. In the ancient reception of Parmenides\u2019 poem, we are able to distinguish several branches. What binds them together is the prominent focus on the thesis that Being is One, first formulated explicitly in Plato. I have suggested above to differentiate readers of Parmenides according to their attitude towards the Presocratic philosopher. Here, the two antipodes, as it were, are Plato and Aristotle.\r\n\r\nPlato aimed at further developing Eleatic conceptions of being in a creative way and prefigured a Platonizing account of Parmenides\u2019 poem. An explicit Platonizing reading of Parmenides can be traced back to the Middle Platonist Plutarch of Chaeronea and was taken up by several Neoplatonists such as Plotinus, Proclus, Damascius, and Simplicius. For both Plato and the Platonic tradition, Parmenides was an authoritative figure. Notwithstanding this continuity in attitude, a notable shift from Plato to the Platonic tradition can be observed. While Plato, as we have said, tried to elaborate on specific key terms of Parmenides\u2019 philosophy such as being, non-being, knowledge, etc., Platonists rather tried to bring Parmenides\u2019 philosophy in agreement with that of Plato, or rather, with what they considered the philosophy of Plato.\r\n\r\nAristotle, on the other hand, who is followed by Alexander of Aphrodisias, was eager to challenge Parmenides\u2019 account of being and to prove him wrong. Although several attempts have been made to read Aristotle\u2019s account in Physics I.2\u20133 in a more constructive way, it is doubtful whether they are successful. He just does not seem to be very coherent when it comes to presenting Parmenides\u2019 doctrines. Rather, his strategy is essentially polemical.\r\n\r\nIn several respects, Simplicius obtains a special role in the history of the reading of Parmenides and hence in the doxographical tradition. He is a rather peculiar kind of doxographer, a doxographer that serves a much broader agenda than just making sense of Parmenides\u2019 philosophy or simply preserving the views of an author. It seems to be a kind of context- or genre-dependent, polyphonic, multilevel doxography that has the capacity to integrate other authors or commentators in order to demonstrate the essential unity (symph\u00f4nia) of ancient Hellenic wisdom. Commenting on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, Simplicius definitely did more than he had to, for he brings in much more material, especially from Parmenides\u2019 poem and Plato\u2019s dialogues, than he found in Aristotle or what is needed to comment on Aristotle. As a doxographer, he is eager to interpret, harmonize, and preserve.\r\n\r\nSimplicius\u2019 art of doxography is, I would suggest, not primarily devised to understand an author better, but to promote a certain reading of a text or an author in a well-defined ideological manner. In our case, the guiding principles of Simplicius are the harmony of Plato and Aristotle and the unity of the Greek philosophical tradition. Ivan Adriano Licciardi, contrasting Aristotle and Simplicius, aptly attributes to Aristotle a storiografia dialettica, while Simplicius champions a storiografia sinfonica.\r\n\r\nThe context in which the doxa of a certain author are transmitted is also quite crucial. In the case of Parmenides, we do not know of any running commentary written in Antiquity. It is important to emphasize that Simplicius too, although he is quoting a good bit from the poem firsthand, does not comment on it line by line as he does in the case of Aristotle. Rather, he is clever enough to select certain words or phrases and interpret them according to his guidelines. As we have seen, it is significant that Simplicius discusses Parmenides\u2019 philosophy in the context of Aristotle\u2019s criticism and against the background of Plato\u2019s exegesis, first and foremost in the Sophist. It is certainly this context or genre that clearly influences the way Parmenides is interpreted. As far as the whole Platonic tradition is concerned, it seems safer not to talk of the reception of Parmenides, but of the reception of Plato\u2019s version of Parmenides.\r\n[conclusion p. 200-202]","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Qox4YDBhtebTWK3","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":146,"full_name":"Helmig, Christoph","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1520,"section_of":1521,"pages":"175-206","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1521,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Lammer-Jas_2022","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume\u2014the proceedings of a 2018 conference at LMU Munich funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation\u2014brings together, for the first time, experts on Greek, Syriac, and Arabic traditions of doxography. Fourteen contributions provide new insight into state-of-the-art contemporary research on the widespread phenomenon of doxography. Together, they demonstrate how Greek, Syriac, and Arabic forms of doxography share common features and raise related questions that benefit interdisciplinary exchange among colleagues from various disciplines, such as classics, Arabic studies, and the history of philosophy. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XdQoRcGvPjnpUca","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Interpreting Parmenides of Elea in Antiquity: From Plato\u2019s Parmenides to Simplicius\u2019 Commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics"]}
| Title | Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Publication Place | Leiden – Boston |
| Publisher | Brill |
| Series | Philosophia Antiqua |
| Volume | 160 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | |
| Editor(s) | Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike |
| Translator(s) |
Aristotle is famous for beginning his discussions of particular problems with earlier views (doxai) on the subject at hand, whether in physics (Phys. I.2–6), biology (Hist. anim. III.2–3; De respir. 1–9), psychology (De an. I.2–4), metaphysics (Met. Α.1–10), or astronomy (Cael. I.1; 10–12). Part of the procedure is, as he often puts it, to “go over or rehearse the puzzles” (diaporêsai). Ever since Hermann Diels tried to collect and reconstruct the doctrines of the Presocratics, Aristotle’s discussions (and those of his collaborator and immediate successor Theophrastus) became associated with the wider pathways of transmission of early Greek philosophy. Subsequently, Diels’ work emphasized Theophrastus’ role as the origin for this network of interconnected texts. Diels’ two pioneering works resulting from these investigations, his Doxographi Graeci (mapping and clarifying the various streams of transmission) and his Vorsokratiker (an authoritative collection of the fragments and testimonia), have both dominated the twentieth-century study of early Greek thought. In this chapter, I aim to revisit how we should characterize Aristotle’s habit of examining such “received opinions” and how influential it was on his successors, in particular Theophrastus. The nature of these discussions is, I submit, in need of a more precise characterization. For added perspective on the larger timeframe and the continuity in the Aristotelian tradition, I will include comments on the late Platonist Simplicius (ca. 480–ca. 540 CE), who not only still had access to Theophrastus and several works of Aristotle but also seems to echo aspects of the doxai-discussions in his commentaries on Aristotle, with certain important adjustments. By defining “received opinions” in the sense of “accepted” as well as “transmitted,” we are in a position to distinguish between different kinds of doxai-collections, depending on the context and the questions we ask about the material. In Greek, “received opinions” relates closely to endoxa, which I shall also clarify. The overall aim is to gain more insight into the role of these endoxa in the Aristotelian tradition as well as characterize the method(s) used to frame a scientific discussion with “historical” depth. This three-step analysis aims to offer an answer to the question implied in my title: is Diels’ label accurate for the method used by Aristotle and his successor, or should we consider an alternative description? I have introduced the term “endoxography” in my title in an attempt to coin a phrase that describes more accurately certain types of doxai-collections in contradistinction to Diels’ notion of doxography and its modern use, which seems to have become wider in scope. In my study of Theophrastus’ work, I came up with the phrase “critical endoxography” a long time ago. It was meant to characterize the dialectical argument forms in Theophrastus’ De sensibus as a way of specifying how these “well-known views” (endoxa) received critical attention from both Aristotle and Theophrastus. My focus on the terms doxography and endoxography in the earlier part of this paper is not just an exercise in semantics, but one that concerns the very nature of Aristotle’s activity and how it impacted his successor and later commentators. Diels’ modern term may be more or less appropriate for this wider and later tradition of doxai transmission, but it hardly describes the early Peripatetic habit of retrospective evaluation of previous views related to specific investigations into problems of particular knowledge domains. [introduction p. 151-152] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/Gzd2QU7XGDORXfc |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1521","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1521,"authors_free":[{"id":2639,"entry_id":1521,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2640,"entry_id":1521,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","main_title":{"title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World"},"abstract":"Aristotle is famous for beginning his discussions of particular problems with earlier views (doxai) on the subject at hand, whether in physics (Phys. I.2\u20136), biology (Hist. anim. III.2\u20133; De respir. 1\u20139), psychology (De an. I.2\u20134), metaphysics (Met. \u0391.1\u201310), or astronomy (Cael. I.1; 10\u201312). Part of the procedure is, as he often puts it, to \u201cgo over or rehearse the puzzles\u201d (diapor\u00easai).\r\n\r\nEver since Hermann Diels tried to collect and reconstruct the doctrines of the Presocratics, Aristotle\u2019s discussions (and those of his collaborator and immediate successor Theophrastus) became associated with the wider pathways of transmission of early Greek philosophy. Subsequently, Diels\u2019 work emphasized Theophrastus\u2019 role as the origin for this network of interconnected texts. Diels\u2019 two pioneering works resulting from these investigations, his Doxographi Graeci (mapping and clarifying the various streams of transmission) and his Vorsokratiker (an authoritative collection of the fragments and testimonia), have both dominated the twentieth-century study of early Greek thought.\r\n\r\nIn this chapter, I aim to revisit how we should characterize Aristotle\u2019s habit of examining such \u201creceived opinions\u201d and how influential it was on his successors, in particular Theophrastus. The nature of these discussions is, I submit, in need of a more precise characterization. For added perspective on the larger timeframe and the continuity in the Aristotelian tradition, I will include comments on the late Platonist Simplicius (ca. 480\u2013ca. 540 CE), who not only still had access to Theophrastus and several works of Aristotle but also seems to echo aspects of the doxai-discussions in his commentaries on Aristotle, with certain important adjustments.\r\n\r\nBy defining \u201creceived opinions\u201d in the sense of \u201caccepted\u201d as well as \u201ctransmitted,\u201d we are in a position to distinguish between different kinds of doxai-collections, depending on the context and the questions we ask about the material. In Greek, \u201creceived opinions\u201d relates closely to endoxa, which I shall also clarify. The overall aim is to gain more insight into the role of these endoxa in the Aristotelian tradition as well as characterize the method(s) used to frame a scientific discussion with \u201chistorical\u201d depth.\r\n\r\nThis three-step analysis aims to offer an answer to the question implied in my title: is Diels\u2019 label accurate for the method used by Aristotle and his successor, or should we consider an alternative description? I have introduced the term \u201cendoxography\u201d in my title in an attempt to coin a phrase that describes more accurately certain types of doxai-collections in contradistinction to Diels\u2019 notion of doxography and its modern use, which seems to have become wider in scope.\r\n\r\nIn my study of Theophrastus\u2019 work, I came up with the phrase \u201ccritical endoxography\u201d a long time ago. It was meant to characterize the dialectical argument forms in Theophrastus\u2019 De sensibus as a way of specifying how these \u201cwell-known views\u201d (endoxa) received critical attention from both Aristotle and Theophrastus. My focus on the terms doxography and endoxography in the earlier part of this paper is not just an exercise in semantics, but one that concerns the very nature of Aristotle\u2019s activity and how it impacted his successor and later commentators.\r\n\r\nDiels\u2019 modern term may be more or less appropriate for this wider and later tradition of doxai transmission, but it hardly describes the early Peripatetic habit of retrospective evaluation of previous views related to specific investigations into problems of particular knowledge domains. [introduction p. 151-152]","btype":4,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/Gzd2QU7XGDORXfc","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World"]}
| Title | “Reputable Opinions” (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography? |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World |
| Pages | 151-174 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Baltussen, Han |
| Editor(s) | Lammer, Andreas , Jas, Mareike |
| Translator(s) |
[Introduction, p. 8-9: Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius are at the centre of Han Baltussen’s paper in this volume. Starting with Aristotle’s use of earlier opinions and the methodical framework provided by the Topics, Baltussen considers different kinds of collections of doxai (or perhaps of endoxa, which in Aristotle may turn some doxographies rather into “endoxographies”). He argues that a distinction between doxography and endoxography may clarify several aspects regarding the development of the long tradition of doxaidiscussions, inasmuch as it helps to gain insight into the origin of doxography itself and its relation to the early Peripatetic habit of evaluating earlier opinions, i.e. of “applied dialectics.” Seen in this light, Simplicius’ way of reading Aristotle can also be analysed within the framework of his commentaries to elucidate his philosophical agenda and his version of the endoxographical method]. |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/O7CkQ7ov1PzjUz2 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1522","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1522,"authors_free":[{"id":2643,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":39,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Baltussen, Han","free_first_name":"Han","free_last_name":"Baltussen","norm_person":{"id":39,"first_name":"Han","last_name":"Baltussen","full_name":"Baltussen, Han","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/136236456","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2644,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":565,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Lammer, Andreas","free_first_name":"Andreas","free_last_name":"Lammer","norm_person":{"id":565,"first_name":"Andreas","last_name":"Lammer","full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1031936807","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":2645,"entry_id":1522,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":564,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jas, Mareike ","free_first_name":"Mareike","free_last_name":"Jas","norm_person":{"id":564,"first_name":"Mareike","last_name":"Jas","full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/116742073X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"\u201cReputable Opinions\u201d (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?","main_title":{"title":"\u201cReputable Opinions\u201d (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?"},"abstract":"[Introduction, p. 8-9: Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius are at the centre of Han Baltussen\u2019s paper in this volume. Starting with Aristotle\u2019s use of earlier opinions\r\nand the methodical framework provided by the Topics, Baltussen considers different kinds of collections of doxai (or perhaps of endoxa, which\r\nin Aristotle may turn some doxographies rather into \u201cendoxographies\u201d). He argues that a distinction between doxography and endoxography may clarify several aspects regarding the development of the long tradition of doxaidiscussions, inasmuch as it helps to gain insight into the origin of doxography\r\nitself and its relation to the early Peripatetic habit of evaluating earlier opinions, i.e. of \u201capplied dialectics.\u201d Seen in this light, Simplicius\u2019 way of reading Aristotle can also be analysed within the framework of his commentaries to elucidate his philosophical agenda and his version of the endoxographical method].","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/O7CkQ7ov1PzjUz2","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":39,"full_name":"Baltussen, Han","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":565,"full_name":"Lammer, Andreas","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":564,"full_name":"Jas, Mareike ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1522,"section_of":1521,"pages":"151-174","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":1521,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"reference","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Received Opinions: Doxography in Antiquity and the Islamic World","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Lammer-Jas_2022","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"This volume\u2014the proceedings of a 2018 conference at LMU Munich funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation\u2014brings together, for the first time, experts on Greek, Syriac, and Arabic traditions of doxography. Fourteen contributions provide new insight into state-of-the-art contemporary research on the widespread phenomenon of doxography. Together, they demonstrate how Greek, Syriac, and Arabic forms of doxography share common features and raise related questions that benefit interdisciplinary exchange among colleagues from various disciplines, such as classics, Arabic studies, and the history of philosophy. [author's abstract]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/XdQoRcGvPjnpUca","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":1521,"pubplace":"Leiden \u2013 Boston","publisher":"Brill","series":"Philosophia Antiqua","volume":"160","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["\u201cReputable Opinions\u201d (endoxa) in Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Simplicius. Doxography or Endoxography?"]}