{"_index":"sire","_id":"1111","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1111,"authors_free":[{"id":1678,"entry_id":1111,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":459,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mahoney, Edward P.","free_first_name":"Edward P.","free_last_name":"Mahoney","norm_person":{"id":459,"first_name":"Edward P.","last_name":"Mahoney","full_name":"Mahoney, Edward P.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/123905818","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1679,"entry_id":1111,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":279,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","free_first_name":"Dominic J.","free_last_name":"O'Meara","norm_person":{"id":279,"first_name":"Dominic J.","last_name":"O'Meara","full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11180664X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Neoplatonism, the Greek Commentators, and Renaissance Aristotelianism","main_title":{"title":"Neoplatonism, the Greek Commentators, and Renaissance Aristotelianism"},"abstract":"In this paper I should like to share with my fellow students of Neoplatonism the results of researches in medieval and Renaissance Aristotelianism that have brought to light interesting ways in which Neoplatonism came to have a special impact on the development of Renaissance Aristotelianism. It is certainly not my aim to exclude other possible ways in which Neoplatonism had its effect, but I do believe that historians of ancient Neoplatonism will themselves be surprised to learn of the pervasiveness of certain themes among supposed proponents of Aris\u00adtotle during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The two topics on which I wish to concentrate are (1) the influence on late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century Aristotelianism of two late ancient commentators on Aristotle, namely, Themistius <317\u2014388) and Simplicius (Jl. 530),1 and (2) a conceptual scheme of metaphysical hierarchy whose origins are clearly Neoplatonic and which was constantly debated during the same period. [Author's abstract]","btype":2,"date":"1982","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/2eyv4WzmHFlkenV","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":459,"full_name":"Mahoney, Edward P.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":279,"full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1111,"section_of":12,"pages":"169-177","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":12,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and Christian thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"O'Meara1982","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1982","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1981","abstract":"In this volume, the relationships between two of the most vital currents in Western thought are examined by a group of nineteen internationally known specialists in a variety of disciplines\u2014classics, patristics, philosophy, theology, history of ideas, literature. The contributing scholars discuss Neoplatonic theories about God, creation, man, and salvation, in relation to the ways in which they were adopted, adapted, or rejected by major Christian thinkers of five periods: Patristic, Later Greek and Byzantine, Medieval, Renaissance, and Modern. [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8tb5ZmmacZhgjDn","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":12,"pubplace":"Albany","publisher":"State University of New York Press","series":"Studies in Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Neoplatonism, the Greek Commentators, and Renaissance Aristotelianism"]}

{"_index":"sire","_id":"450","_score":null,"_source":{"id":450,"authors_free":[{"id":603,"entry_id":450,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":348,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","free_first_name":"G\u00e9rard","free_last_name":"Verbeke","norm_person":{"id":348,"first_name":"G\u00e9rard","last_name":"Verbeke","full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/118947583","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":604,"entry_id":450,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":279,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","free_first_name":"Dominic J.","free_last_name":"O'Meara","norm_person":{"id":279,"first_name":"Dominic J.","last_name":"O'Meara","full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/11180664X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Some Later Neoplatonic Views on Divine Creation and the Eternity of the World","main_title":{"title":"Some Later Neoplatonic Views on Divine Creation and the Eternity of the World"},"abstract":"The commentary of Simplicius on Aristotle\u2019s Physics is particularly inter\u00ad\r\nesting thanks to the rich information it provides concerning the doctrines of pre\u00ad\r\nvious philosophers. His interpretation shows a great erudition, but it is not always \r\nfaithful to the authentic thought of Aristotle. The first cause of Aristotle is not \r\nthat of Simplicius and this is not the only case in which Simplicius gave to \r\nAristotelian thought a turn that does not correspond to its original content. A similar \r\ndistortion may be found in the interpretation of the intricate question of chance \r\nand fortune. It is more difficult to formulate a judgment about the commentary \r\nof Philoponus: to what extent does it reflect the teaching of Ammonius? In any \r\ncase, the interpretation is very penetrating, especially in those passages where \r\nthe author criticizes the doctrine of Aristotle and expresses manifestly his own \r\nideas. Alfarabi takes Philoponus to task for settling a philosophical question with \r\nthe help of religious doctrines:60 nothing is less true, as W. Wieland has already \r\nnoticed. Philoponus, rather, uses Aristotelian philosophy in order to refute \r\nAristotle.61 On the other hand he appeals to the concept of creation against the eternity of the world: he very sharply notices, perhaps also under the influence of \r\nAmmonius, that creation as an integral causation is not a movement and does not \r\nbelong to the continuous process of coming-to-be and passing away. Thanks mainly \r\nto the concept of creation, the author escapes from the eternity of movement \r\nand time. [conclusion p. 52-53]","btype":2,"date":"1981","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/QSUX1JffS4trd4H","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":348,"full_name":"Verbeke, G\u00e9rard","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":279,"full_name":"O'Meara, Dominic J.","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":450,"section_of":12,"pages":"45-53","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":12,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Neoplatonism and Christian thought","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"O'Meara1982","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1982","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1981","abstract":"In this volume, the relationships between two of the most vital currents in Western thought are examined by a group of nineteen internationally known specialists in a variety of disciplines\u2014classics, patristics, philosophy, theology, history of ideas, literature. The contributing scholars discuss Neoplatonic theories about God, creation, man, and salvation, in relation to the ways in which they were adopted, adapted, or rejected by major Christian thinkers of five periods: Patristic, Later Greek and Byzantine, Medieval, Renaissance, and Modern. [a.a]","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/8tb5ZmmacZhgjDn","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":12,"pubplace":"Albany","publisher":"State University of New York Press","series":"Studies in Neoplatonism: Ancient and Modern","volume":"3","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Some Later Neoplatonic Views on Divine Creation and the Eternity of the World"]}